The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
James Eldon Bland,
Plaintiff, Case No. 2:24-cv-4015
Judge James L. Graham
v. Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
Paula Sawyers, et al.,
Defendants.
Opinion and Order
Plaintiff James Eldon Bland brings this action pro se to recover monetary damages resulting
from alleged violations of his rights under the United States Constitution. Plaintiff alleges that he
was improperly prosecuted for crimes in Licking County, Ohio in 2017 and 2018. He contends that
criminal charges were brought against him after he had filed a complaint for malicious prosecution
against Licking County prosecutor Paula Sawyers. Sawyers is named as a defendant, as is the Licking
County Clerk of Court. Plaintiff has also brought suit against public defender Kevin Gall and
attorney Kristen Burkett, whom plaintiff alleges failed to communicate with him.
The Magistrate Judge conducted an initial screening of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). She construed the complaint as asserting claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Sawyers and the Licking County Clerk of Court and as asserting state law claims for legal malpractice
against Gall and Burkett. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the § 1983 claims be dismissed
as time-barred and that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the malpractice
claims.
After the issuance of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, plaintiff
submitted a proposed amended complaint, as well as a separate document captioned as objections to
the Report and Recommendations. The Court finds that the proposed amended complaint does not
cure the deficiencies identified by the Magistrate Judge with regard to the § 1983 claims. The
proposed amended complaint confirms that the current suit relates to criminal charges filed against
plaintiff over 6 years ago. See Doc. 11, p. 3 (referencing a 2017 criminal case). As the Magistrate
Judge explained, a two year statute of limitations applies to plaintiff’s § 1983 claims. See Browning v.
Pendleton, 869 F.2d 989, 992 (6th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff filed this action on October 3, 2024, and his
claims are time-barred.
Plaintiff’s objections fare no better. The objections do not address the Report and
Recommendation, but are a listing of 30 “constitutional questions” which in no way relate to the
statute of limitations issue. See, e.g., Doc. 10 at p. 3 (“What class do identical twins fall under, Indian,
Alien, Natural Person, Sovereign, National or a different kind of specialized class[?]”).
The Court thus finds that plaintiff’s § 1983 claims relating to alleged violations of his rights
in 2017 and 2018 are time-barred and must be dismissed. The Court additionally declines to exercise
jurisdiction over the state law malpractice claims. See Brooks v. Rothe, 577 F.3d 701, 709 (6th Cir.
2009).
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (doc. 9) is hereby ADOPTED, plaintiff’s
objections (doc. 10) are OVERRULED, and plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended
complaint (doc. 11) is DENIED. The complaint is DISMISSED, with dismissal of the state law
claims being without prejudice. Plaintiff’s miscellaneous motions (docs. 12, 13, 14, 15) are denied.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3) that an appeal of this order would not
be taken in good faith for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. Therefore, the
Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability and denies petitioner leave to proceed on appeal
in forma pauperis. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); Kincade v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949, 952 (6th Cir. 1997).
s/ James L. Graham
JAMES L. GRAHAM
DATE: December 5, 2024 United States District Judge