Lockhart

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

29SC FOUR POINTE LP, :

:

Plaintiff, : Case No. 2:26-cv-244

:

v. : Judge Algenon L. Marbley

:

MARINA LOCKHART, et al., : Magistrate Judge Shimeall

:

:

Defendants. :

OPINION & ORDER

This matter comes before this Court on Defendant Marina Lockhart’s Motion for

Injunction (ECF No. 4), Lockhart’s Objections (ECF No. 7) to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (ECF No. 6), and Lockhart’s Motions for Preliminary Injunction. (ECF Nos. 8,

9). In the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), the Magistrate Judge recommended that this

Court dismiss Lockhart’s Complaint (ECF No. 5), remand this action to the Franklin County

Municipal Court, and deny Lockhart’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 6). For the

reasons that follow, this Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (ECF No. 6) and

OVERRULES Lockhart’s Objections (ECF No. 7). Lockhart’s Complaint (ECF No. 5) is

DISMISSED. Further, Lockhart’s Motions for Preliminary Injunction (ECF Nos. 8, 9) are hereby

DENIED as MOOT. This action is REMANDED to the Franklin County Municipal Court.

I. BACKGROUND

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

and Detainer against Defendant, Marina Lockhart, in the Municipal Court of Franklin County,

Ohio. See 29SC Four Pointe LP v. Marina Lockhart, Franklin County M.C. No. 2026 CVG

008109. The petition sought to evict Lockhart from her residence at 3896 Summit Pointe, Apt 304,

Columbus, Ohio 43230 due to her alleged failure to pay rent in violation of the lease agreement.

(ECF No. 5 at 1–2). Lockhart represents that she sought a continuance of the eviction hearing in

municipal court, to try to obtain counsel, but was denied. (ECF No. 1 at 4). She further alleges that

she was blocked from applying for the City of Columbus’s rent assistance program. (Id.).

Subsequently on February 27, 2026, Lockhart filed a Notice of Removal in this Court on the basis

that she is being denied Due Process and other civil rights. (ECF No. 1-1).

The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on April 24, 2024, and

recommended that this Court dismiss Lockhart’s Complaint, remand this action to the Franklin

County Municipal Court, and deny Lockhart’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 6).

The Magistrate Judge opined that this Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and additionally

that Lockhart’s request that this Court intervene in the state court action is barred by the Rooker-

Feldman doctrine. (Id. at 3–4). On May 8, 2026, Lockhart timely filed objections to the R&R.

(ECF No. 7). 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. Be// 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.

Hl. LAW AND ANALYSIS

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

apprending from the Franklin County Municipal Court docket that the Defendant Marina

Lockhart's Due Process rights have been violated by the Plaintiff 29SC Four Point LP pursuing

eviction.” (ECF No. 7 at 1). Given Lockhart 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.”).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, this Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (ECF No. 6) and OVERRULES Lockhart’s Objections (ECF No. 7). Lockhart’s

Complaint (ECF No. 6) is DISMISSED. Further, Lockhart’s Motions for Preliminary Injunction

(ECF Nos. 8, 9) are hereby DENIED as MOOT. This action is REMANDED to the Franklin

County Municipal Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED. (

ALGENON L. MARB

DATED: May 27, 2026 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE