UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO BRIAN E. WARD, ) CASE NO. 1: 21 CV 787 ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER ) v. ) ) MEDINA COUNTY SHERIFF ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION OFFICE, ) AND ORDER ) Defendant. ) Pro se plaintiff Brian E. Ward has filed a fee-paid complaint in this case against defendant “Medina County Sheriff Office” seeking relief under

. (Doc. No. 1.) The complaint is unclear but appears to pertain to events occurring in connection with a domestic relations case in the Medina County Court of Common Pleas Domestic Relations Division. On its face, the complaint does not allege a plausible claim over which this Court may assert federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The named defendant “Medina County Sheriff Office” is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983. See, e.g., Carmichael v. City of Cleveland,

(6th Cir. 2014) (finding dismissal of claims against county sheriff's department proper because “a county sheriff's office is not a legal entity that is capable of being sued”). Generally, where the filing fee has been paid by plaintiff at the outset of the case, the district court may not sua sponte dismiss the complaint unless the court gives the plaintiff the opportunity to amend the complaint. Apple v. Glenn,

(6th Cir. 1999). In accordance with Apple, the plaintiff is hereby provided the opportunity to file an Amended Complaint. The plaintiff is instructed to file, and serve, a legally sufficient Amended Complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order. If the plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint that sets forth a cognizable claim

over which this Court may assert subject-matter jurisdiction, this action may be dismissed without further notice. Apple,

; Catz v. Chalker,

(6th Cir. 1998).1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Dan Aaron Polster 5/6/2021 DAN AARON POLSTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1The defendant may respond to any Amended Complaint the plaintiff files in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. -2-