Brown

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

29SC FOUR POINTE LP, :

:

Plaintiff, : Case No. 2:26-cv-243

:

v. : Judge Algenon L. Marbley

:

JESSICA BROWN, et al., : Magistrate Judge Vascura

:

:

Defendants. :

OPINION & ORDER

This matter comes before this Court on Defendant Jessica Brown’s Motions for Hearing

Regarding Status of State Court (ECF No. 6), Injunction (ECF No. 8), and Brown’s Objections to

the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 12). (ECF No. 13). In the

R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court remand this action to the Franklin County

Municipal Court and deny Brown’s Motions for Hearing and Injunction. (ECF No. 12). For the

reasons that follow, this Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (ECF No. 12) and

OVERRULES Brown’s Objections (ECF No. 13). This action is REMANDED to the Franklin

County Municipal Court. Accordingly, Brown’s Motions for a Hearing and Injunction (ECF Nos.

6, 8) are hereby DENIED as MOOT.

I. BACKGROUND

On February 12, 2026, Plaintiff, 29SC Four Pointe LP, filed a Petition in Forcible Entry

and Detainer against Defendant, Jessica Brown, in the Municipal Court of Franklin County, Ohio.

See 29SC Four Pointe LP v. Jessica Brown, Franklin County M.C., No. 26 CVG 008106. The

petition sought to evict Brown from her residence due to her alleged failure to pay rent in violation

of the lease agreement. (ECF No. 1-1). On March 4, 2026, the Municipal Court issued a Writ of

Restitution which required Brown to vacate the premises. Subsequently, Brown appealed the writ

to the Tenth District Court of Appeals which stayed its enforcement. (Id.).

On February 27, 2026, Brown filed a Notice of Removal in this Court. (ECF No. 1-1 at 1).

The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on April 14, 2026, recommending

that the Court remand this action to the Franklin County Municipal Court and deny Brown’s

pending Motions. (ECF No. 12 at 5–6). The Magistrate Judge opined that this Court lacked subject

matter jurisdiction and additionally that Brown’s request that this Court intervene in the state court

action is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. (Id. at 3–4). The R&R specified that Brown’s

Notice of Removal consists only of state-law claims for eviction under Ohio Revised Code Chapter

1923, which “are creatures of state law.” (Id. at 5).

On April 28, 2026, Brown filed timely objections to the R&R. (ECF No. 12). These matters

are now ripe for this Court’s review.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a party’s objections to a Report and Recommendation, “[t]he 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). In so doing, “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or

modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the

magistrate judge with instruction.” Id.

When a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, “the court shall dismiss” their complaint or

any portion of it that: “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While detailed factual allegations are not necessary at the pleading stage,

mere “labels and conclusions” are insufficient to state a proper claim. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007). Pro se complaints are to be construed liberally, but “basic pleading

essentials” still are required. Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). Thus, to survive

screening, a complaint must contain sufficient facts which, if accepted as true, would plausibly

state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

III. LAW AND ANALYSIS

In her Objection, Brown merely contends that the Magistrate Judge erred by “not

apprending from the Franklin County Municipal Court docket that the Defendant Jessica Brown’s

Due Process rights have been violated by the Plaintiff 29SC Four Point LP pursuing eviction.”

(ECF No. 13 at 1). Given that Brown failed to make any substantive argument as to the Magistrate

Judge’s R&R, this Court construes the Objection as a general objection, which is not sufficient to

appeal the Order. Reitz v. McKay, 2014 WL 6770139, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 1, 2014) (citing

Howard v. Sec. of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508–09 (6th Cir.1991) (“Plaintiff's

‘objection’ cannot be construed as anything other than a general objection, which does not suffice

to preserve issues for appeal.”). Further, the Magistrate Judge is correct that the eviction action at

issue only raises a state law claim and Brown’s attempt to raise a defense based on federal

violations of ERAP does not give this Court authority to intervene. JLL Properties LLC v. Ward,

2021 WL 784324, at *2 (W.D. Ky., 2021) (“Defendants’ attempt to raise federal issues pursuant

to the CARES Act simply does not create federal jurisdiction because they are merely claiming a

“‘substantive federal defense to a state-law claim [which does] not raise a federal question.’”)

(citations omitted). Thus, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons that follow, this Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (ECF No. 12)

and OVERRULES Brown’s Objections (ECF No. 13). This action is REMANDED to the

Franklin County Municipal Court. Accordingly, Brown’s Motions for Injunction and to Compel

(ECF Nos. 6, 9) are hereby DENIED as MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

G4 L. oe Ufa

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: May 27, 2026