Vaughn v. Common Pleas Court of Montgomery County Ohio

Filing 6

ENTRY AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS overruling Objections 5 - Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court CERTIFIES under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that Plaintiff's appeal, if an y, would not be taken in good faith; and the case is TERMINATED on the docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 10-21-2016. (de)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
GRACE VAUGHN,

Case No. 3:16cv00248
Plaintiff,

Judge Thomas M. Rose

v.
COMMON PLEAS COURT OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (DOC. 5); ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 4) AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (DOC. 2)
______________________________________________________________________________
This case is before the Court on the Objections (Doc. 5) filed by pro se Plaintiff Grace
Vaughn (“Plaintiff”) to the Report and Recommendations (“Report”) (Doc. 4). In the Report,
Chief Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington, upon an initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2), recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 2) be dismissed.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has
made a de novo review of the record in this case. As the Chief Magistrate Judge stated in the
Report, the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas is not a “person” under § 1983 and
therefore lacks the capacity to be sued. Evans v. Cordray, No. 2:09-CV-587, 2012 WL 1021698,
at *3 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 26, 2012) (“[I]t is not proper to make a court a defendant. Courts are not
persons within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”). In addition, Plaintiff’s claims assert a
violation of a constitutional right that did not exist in 1975 when her application for a marriage
license was denied. The constitutional right she now seeks to vindicate was not recognized until
2015. Obergefell v. Hodges, __U.S. __, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015). “The doctrine of qualified

immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct
does not violate clearly established statutory and constitutional rights of which a reasonable person
would have known.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (quoting Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)).
The Court therefore finds that Defendant’s Objections (Doc. 5) to the Report (Doc. 4) are
not well taken and they are hereby OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 4) in
its entirety and rules as follows:


Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2);



The Court CERTIFIES under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that Plaintiff’s
appeal, if any, would not be taken in good faith; and



The case is TERMINATED on the docket of this Court.

DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Friday, October 21, 2016.

s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2