Chapman v. Franklin County Sheriff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Tasha Chapman, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:22-cv-2524 v. Judge Michael H. Watson Franklin County Sheriff, et al., Magistrate Judge Litkovitz Defendants.

ORDER Magistrate Judge Litkovitz issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on June 24, 2022, recommending the Court dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims other than her official-capacity claims against the Franklin County Sheriff (“the Sheriff”).

R&R, ECF No. 4. The R&R notified Plaintiff of her right to object to the recommendations contained therein and that the failure to object may forfeit appellate rights. Id. at 10. The deadline for objecting has passed, and Plaintiff did not file objections.

Accordingly, and without conducting a de novo review, the Court ADOPTS IN PART the R&R. The Court DISMISSES all of Plaintiff’s claims against the Franklin County Correctional Center, II and John and Jane Doe. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate those parties as defendants in this case.

Plaintiff asserts the following eight claims against the Sheriff: (1) First Amendment; (2) Fourteenth Amendment; (3) Eighth Amendment; (5)1 Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act; (6) Fair Housing Act; (7) state-law intentional infliction of emotional distress; (8) Americans with Disabilities Act; and (9) Fair Housing Act. The Court doubts the Complaint states a claim2 for all eight causes of action, and this case should not proceed past the initial screening stage on any cause of action for which Plaintiff fails to state a claim. Therefore, the Court RECOMMITS this matter to the magistrate judge for specific consideration of whether Plaintiff has plausibly alleged each of the above claims against the Sheriff. The R&R shall make clear which of these claims are sufficiently alleged and which should be screened out under § 1915A because it fails to state a claim or seeks money damages from a defendant immune from such damages.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____/s/ Michael H. Watson___________ MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 The Complaint skips from the “Third Cause of Action” to the “Fifth Cause of Action.”

Compl. 7–8, ECF No. 3.

2 By way of example and not limitation, the viability of Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claim is unclear; she alleges she has been released from jail, and she cannot recover damages under RLUIPA. See Pleasant-Bey v. Shelby Cty., No. 18-6063, 2019 WL 11769343, at *3 (6th Cir. Nov. 7, 2019).