The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
James Jamison,
Plaintiff, Case No. 1:19cv790
v. Judge Michael R. Barrett
U.S. Attorney Jessica
Knight, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s November 6, 2019
Report and Recommendations (“R&R”) (Doc. 12) and Plaintiff’s Objections thereto (Doc.
13).
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When objections are made to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on
a nondispositive matter, this Court “shall modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate
judge's order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The
“clearly erroneous” standard applies to the magistrate judge's factual findings and the
“contrary to law” standard applies to the legal conclusions. Sheppard v. Warden,
Chillicothe Corr., Inst., 1:12-CV-198, 2013 WL 146364, *5 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 14, 2013).
Legal conclusions should be modified or set aside if they “contradict or ignore applicable
precepts of law, as found in the Constitution, statutes, or case precedent.” Gandee v.
Glaser, 785 F.Supp. 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio 1992). When objections to a magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation are received on a dispositive matter, the assigned district
judge “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has
been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). After review, the district judge “may
accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision; receive further evidence; or return
the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter pro se. Plaintiff is a resident at a halfway house
in Cincinnati, Ohio. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of his March 22, 2018 supervised release
violation and imposition of a twenty-four-month sentence for new offenses of identity theft,
wire fraud, and mail fraud.
The Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but
determined that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for the reasons set forth in her October 9,
2019 R&R (Doc. 7). While the October 9, 2019 R&R was pending, Plaintiff filed a Motion
to Supplement his Complaint (Doc. 11), a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 9), and a
Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 10). In her November 6, 2019 R&R,
the Magistrate Judge found that these motions were either duplicative of previously filed
motions or should be denied in light of the October 9, 2019 R&R; and recommended that
the Court adopt in its entirety the October 9, 2019 R&R.
III. ANALYSIS
In his Objections, Plaintiff states that the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that he
had failed to state a claim because Plaintiff has cited other cases where other individuals
have committed supervised release violations but were not sent back to federal prison.
Plaintiff points out that he was never arrested for the four new alleged crimes. Plaintiff
also claims that even though he was innocent of these crimes, Defendant U.S. District
Court Judge Timothy S. Black found him guilty of committing all four crimes. Finally,
Plaintiff argues that Defendant U.S. Attorney Jessica Knight is not entitled to prosecutorial
immunity; and none of the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because they
knew their acts were unconstitutional.
However, as the Magistrate Judge explained Defendant Knight is entitled to
absolute prosecutorial immunity because Plaintiff’s supervised release violation is
intimately associated with the judicial phase of his criminal case. The doctrine of absolute
immunity allows prosecutors to exercise their own independent judgment in “deciding
which suits to bring and in conducting them in court.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 424,
419 (1976). Therefore, the Court finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that
Defendant Knight is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity and Plaintiff’s claims
against Defendant Knight should be dismissed.
In addition, as the Magistrate Judge explained, judges are afforded absolute
immunity from damages for acts they commit while functioning within their judicial
capacity. Imbler, 424 U.S. at 419 (explaining that judicial “immunity applies even when
the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it is not for the protection or
benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it
is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and
without fear of consequences”) (internal quotations omitted). Therefore, the Court finds
no error in the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Judge Black is entitled to absolute
judicial immunity and Plaintiff’s claims against him should be dismissed.
Finally, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Defendant U.S. Probation Officer
Darla Huffman is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. The Court finds no error in this
conclusion. See Frazier v. Crump, No. 16-6687, 2017 WL 5664900, at *2 (6th Cir. Oct.
17, 2017) (probation officers who supervised plaintiff’s probation and reported his
violations were entitled to quasi-judicial immunity).
IV. CONCLUSION
Having reviewed this matter de novo in accordance with Rule 72 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. 12) to be
thorough, well-reasoned, and correct. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge’s November 6,
2019 R&R (Doc. 12) is ADOPTED in its entirety, and Plaintiff’s Objections (Docs. 8, 13)
are OVERRULED. It is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The October 9, 2019 R&R (Doc. 7) is adopted in its entirety and, for the
reasons set forth therein, Plaintiff’s Complaint, as supplemented, is
DISMISSED with PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted;
2. Plaintiff’s second Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint (Doc.
11) is DENIED as duplicative;
3. Plaintiff’s Motion and Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs.
9, 10) is DENIED;
4. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) that for the
foregoing reasons an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith,
and therefore, Plaintiff is DENIED leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997); and
5. This matter is CLOSED and TERMINATED from the active docket of this
Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Michael R. Barrett
Michael R. Barrett
United States District Court