Brown v. Cincinnati Police Department

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI

DAQUAN BROWN, : Case No. 1:24-cv-316

Plaintiff, 2 Judge Matthew W. McFarland

: Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman

v.

CINCINNATI POLICE

DEPARTMENT, et al., :

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Docs. 7, 16)

This matter is before the Court on the Supplemental Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 7) and Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) of United States Magistrate Judge

Stephanie K. Bowman. Plaintiff filed objections to the Supplemental Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 10). Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 16), and the time for doing so has expired. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b)(2). Thus, this matter is ripe for the Court's review.

On August 6, 2024, the Magistrate Judge recommended that all claims against all

Defendants, except for Defendants Christopher Wermuth, Emily Ward, Dustin Pect, and

Elsa Esser in their individual capacities, should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to

state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (Supp. Report and Recommendation, Doc.

7.) In light of the Amended Complaint’s vague and conclusory allegations regarding a

policy or custom, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the Plaintiff had failed to

sufficiently plead a cognizable 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the City of Cincinnati or the

Individual Defendants in their official capacities. (Id. at Pg. ID 170-74.)

Plaintiff objects that his Amended Complaint includes “rational and arguable

complaints against all defendants,” states “policy wrongdoing,” and shows that “each

defendant [has] acted under color of state law.” (Objection, Doc. 10.) This conclusory

objection is not well taken. See Cole v. Yukins, 7 F. App’x 354, 356 (6th Cir. 2001) (“The

filing of vague, general, or conclusory objections does not meet the requirement of

specific objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to object.”). In any event, the

Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s well-reasoned conclusion that the Amended

Complaint only offers vague and conclusory allegations as to the City of Cincinnati’s

policy or custom. (See Am. Compl., Doc. 6; Supp. Report and Recommendation, Doc. 7.)

mere conclusory allegation that a municipality employs an unlawful policy or custom,

without identifying the policy or stating a pattern of conformance to that custom, is not

sufficient.” Finnell v. Eppans, No. 1:20-CV-337, 2020 WL 3548200, at *3 (S.D. Ohio June 15,

2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:20-CV-337, 2020 WL 3545288 (S.D. Ohio

June 30, 2020) (quotation omitted). Plaintiff's objection is therefore overruled.

Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Report and Recommendation in which

the Magistrate Judge recommended granting the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Report

and Recommendation, Doc. 16). A copy of this Report and Recommendation was mailed

to Plaintiff, but it was retuned as undeliverable. (See Mailing, Doc. 19.) A party bears the

burden of notifying the Court of any changes to his mailing address. Yeschick v. Mineta,

675 F.3d 622, 630 (6th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff was specifically apprised of this duty to “inform

the Court promptly of any changes in [his] address which may occur during the

pendency of this lawsuit.” (See Order, Doc. 2, Pg. ID 85.) Therefore, the Report and

Recommendation is ripe for review. See, e.g., Lester v. Castleberry, No. 24-11785, 2024 WL

4713828, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 7, 2024) (explaining that Report and Recommendation’s

return as undeliverable did not excuse party’s failure to respond).

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. The Court finds that Plaintiff's

Objections (Doc. 10) are not well-taken and are accordingly OVERRULED. Thus, the

Court ADOPTS the Supplemental Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7) and Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 16) in their entirety and ORDERS the following:

1) For the reasons explained in the Supplemental Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 7), the Court DISMISSES all claims against all Defendants, except for

Defendants Christopher Wermuth, Emily Ward, Dustin Pect, and Elsa Esser in

their individual capacities, for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B);

2) For the reasons explained in the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16), the

Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13). The Court

DISMISSES the claims against Defendants Christopher Wermuth, Emily

Ward, Dustin Pect, and Elsa Esser in their individual capacities; and

3) This case is TERMINATED from the Court's docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Haak weds

By:

JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND