# Boster

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · February 12, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11288915

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert Boster v. Fairfield County, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** February 12, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11288915

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT BOSTER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case Number 2:25-cv-1229
Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
FAIRFIELD COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on an Order and Report and Recommendation issued by
the Magistrate Judge on January 12, 2026. (ECF No. 3.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that
Plaintiff Robert Boster’s Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. (Id.)
Mr. Boster, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought claims under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against Fairfield County, Ohio, its Board of Commissioners, and several county
employees over an incident that occurred at the Fairfield County Commissioner’s meeting in
October 2025. (ECF No. 2.) Mr. Boster stated he and his daughter entered the meeting to deliver
a document titled “Violation Warning: Denial of Rights Under Color of Law” to Judge Laura B.
Smith and Magistrate Sandra S. Miller. (Id.) He alleged that various individual Defendants
impeded the delivery, shoved him, prevented his daughter from recording, forcibly removed him,
and later impeded him from leaving the premises. (Id.) He alleged that Defendants violated his
and his daughter’s First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights during the incident. (Id.)
The Magistrate Judge conducted an initial screen of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) and recommended that Mr. Boster’s action be dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. (ECF No. 3.)
After a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation, any party may object

within 14 days by serving and filing written objections to the magistrate judge’s proposed
findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to object results in waiver of
the right to a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation by the district court. See United
States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981). Mr. Boster was advised of his right to
object to the Report and Recommendation and the consequences of failing to do so. (ECF No. 3,
PageID 65–66.) Mr. Boster did not object to the Order and Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Order and Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close this case.

The Clerk is further DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff Robert Boster at
160 State Route 233, Patriot, Ohio, 45658.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2/12/2026 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11288915. Public record. Not legal advice.