noting the “fail[ure] to file an[y] objection[s] to the magistrate judge’s R&R … [constitutes a] forfeiture” of such objections
How later courts described this case
- noting the “fail[ure] to file an[y] objection[s] to the magistrate judge’s R&R … [constitutes a] forfeiture” of such objections
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
DINELL MAURICE COPELAND,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:22-cv-129
v.
JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE
BRENDAN KELLY, et al. Magistrate Judge Gentry
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Gentry’s May 2, 2022, Report and
Recommendation (R&R, Doc. 4), which recommends that the Court dismiss with
prejudice Plaintiff Dinell Maurice Copeland’s claim against Defendant Butler County
Jail for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. For the reasons
stated more fully below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Doc. 4) and DISMISSES
Copeland’s claim against Butler County Jail WITH PREJUDICE.
Kelly, a corrections officer at Butler County Jail, allegedly assaulted Copeland,
an inmate detained at that facility, after Kelly and several inmates exchanged words
and insults over the inmates’ delay in returning to their cells. (Compl., Doc. 3, #65).
On March 9, 2022, the Court docketed Copeland’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP), attached to which was a proposed complaint that raised claims
against Kelly and Butler County Jail. (Doc. 1). Under this Court’s General Order 22-
05, the matter was referred to a Magistrate Judge. On March 23, 2022, the Magistrate
Judge granted Copeland IFP status. (Doc. 2).
Then, on May 2, 2022, invoking the Court’s authority under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e), 1915A to conduct a sua sponte review of IFP complaints, the Magistrate
Judge issued her R&R. (Doc. 4, #68). She first construed Copeland’s Complaint “as
asserting a Section 1983 excessive force claim under the Eighth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.” (Id. at #71). Based on this construction of Copeland’s
Complaint, she concluded that Copeland could proceed with his claim against Kelly
in his individual capacity, but that his claim against Butler County Jail failed to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Id. at #71–72). And the Magistrate Judge
ordered Copeland to complete a summons with respect to Kelly. (Id. at #73). Copeland
completed the summons as requested, (Doc. 5), and his claims against Kelly are
currently pending, (see Docs. 16, 19). So the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation of
dismissal of the claim against Butler County Jail is waiting for this Court’s review.
The R&R had advised Copeland that failing to object within 14 days could
result in a forfeiture of his right to the Court’s de novo review of the R&Rs as well as
his right to appeal this decision. (Doc. 4, #74). Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152–53
(1985); Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (noting the “fail[ure] to
file an[y] objection[s] to the magistrate judge’s R&R … [constitutes a] forfeiture” of
such objections); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Accordingly, Copeland had until May 16,
2022, to object to the R&R. He did not do so.
Although no party has objected, the advisory committee notes to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 72(b) suggest that the Court still must “satisfy itself that there is
no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See
also Redmon v. Noel, No. 1:21-cv-445, 2021 WL 4771259, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 13,
2021) (collecting cases). Consistent with that charge, the Court has reviewed the R&R
and has determined that it does not contain any “clear error on [its] face.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b) (advisory committee notes).
As the Magistrate Judge explained, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by its own terms permits
suits only against “person[s].” And correctional facilities, such as the Butler County
Jail, are not proper persons to be defendants in a § 1983 action. Polachek v. Roberts,
No. 1:22-cv-742, 2023 WL 6348388, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 28, 2023) (A jail “is not a
legal entity susceptible to suit” and instead is “a department of [the corresponding]
County.” (cleaned up)). So the Court agrees with the R&R that this the claim fails.
And because Copeland cannot fix this claim against this entity with new allegations,
the Court also agrees that Butler County Jail should be dismissed with prejudice.1
Separately, because Copeland is proceeding IFP, the Court must assess,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), whether an appeal taken from this Order would
be “in good faith.” Because Copeland’s Complaint plainly fails to state a claim for
relief from Butler County Jail, (Doc. 4, #71–72), “any appeal of this decision would
1 The Magistrate Judge also concluded that the claim would fail if the Complaint were
construed instead as raising a claim against the Butler County Board of County
Commissioners. (Doc. 4, #72); see also Lovelo v. Clermont Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., No. 1:23-cv-114,
2023 WL 8828008, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 21, 2023) (explaining that in Ohio, an unchartered
county’s board has the capacity to be sued, not the county itself). That is because Copeland
had not alleged that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated on account of a county-wide
policy or custom. (Doc. 4, #72 (citing Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690–91
(1978))). While the Court does not disagree with the Magistrate Judge’s statement of the law,
nothing in this Order should be understood to resolve or to adjudicate any claims Copeland
might have against the Butler County Board of County Commissioners. Copeland did not
identify that entity by name in his Complaint, so any claims against it are not properly before
the Court. Accordingly, the Court reserves judgment on any such claims for another day if
Copeland decides to raise them.
not have an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Johnson v. DeWine, No. 1:22-cv-
587, 2023 WL 6421286, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 3, 2023) (cleaned up). The Court
therefore certifies that any appeal taken from this Order IFP would not be in good
faith.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Doc. 4) and DISMISSES
Copeland’s claim against Butler County Jail WITH PREJUDICE.? The Court
further CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal taken from
this Order would not be made in good faith and DENIES Copeland leave to appeal
in forma pauperis.
SO ORDERED. Te
March 27, 2024 ( \
DATE DOUGLAS R. COLE \
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 Because this Order addresses only the claim against Butler County Jail, the proceedings in
this case related to Eighth Amendment claim against Kelly will continue apace unaffected.