UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Toshalyn Murray, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:22-cv-2047 V. Judge Michael H. Watson Tom Pyle, et ai., Magistrate Judge Jolson Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER Toshalyn Murray (“Plaintiff’) sues twenty-three total Defendants, including the Athens County Sheriffs Department, Athens County Children Services, Athens County School District, Athens Police Department, Athens County Clerk of Courts, Southeastern Ohio Legal Services, Carol Dawson, who is Plaintiff's landlord, and a variety of individuals employed by these entities (collectively, “Defendants”) under, inter alia,

. Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 13. The Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiffs pro se Complaint under

(e)(2) and issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Court dismiss the same. R&R, ECF No. 14. This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiffs objection to the R&R. Obj., ECF No. 15. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's objection is OVERRULED, and the R&R is ADOPTED.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the Court reviews de

novo those portions of the R&R that Plaintiff specifically objected to. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). ll. ANALYSIS The R&R concludes that Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint fails to allege a federal cause of action. In her objection, Plaintiff lists several federal causes of action and argues her Second Amended Complaint states a claim under each. The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint in light of the federal causes of action she purports to raise. On de novo review, the Court agrees Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint must be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. First, there is no diversity jurisdiction under

in this case given that Plaintiff and Defendants all appear to be citizens of Ohio. Second, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint does not adequately allege any federal cause of action for jurisdiction under

. Plaintiffs objections argue that she raises the following federal claims: (1) discrimination under

; (2) neglect under

; (3) an equal protection violation under the Fourteenth Amendment; (4) a violation of

; (5) racial discrimination; (6) assault on a minor; (7) failure to

Case No. 2:22-cv-2047 Page 2 of 4

train; (8) failure to report child abuse; (9) endangering minors; and (10) extreme negligence. ECF No. 15. Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege a discrimination claim under

because she fails to allege that she has a disability. Moreover, the narrative Second Amended Complaint lacks specific facts that would state a claim for neglect under

, a claim for an equal protection violation under the Fourteenth Amendment, or for race discrimination. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that she is bringing claims under

, but she does not have standing to do so as this is a criminal statute with no private right of action. Finally, Plaintiff alleges a host of non-federal claims—assault on a minor, failure to train,’ failure to report child abuse, endangering minors, and extreme negligence. As discussed above, the Court does not have jurisdiction over these claims under

or 1332. Moreover, Plaintiffs objections generally restate some of her allegations against some of the Defendants and request that the Court permit her to proceed against five specific Defendants. Plaintiff also states that she has been unable to effectively communicate with the Court because she does not have legal counsel and requests that the Court appoint her counsel. To the extent these statements

are meant as additional objections, they likely amount to merely general

Even if Plaintiff adequately alleged a § 1983 claim, she alleges only conclusory statements regarding failure to train, making any Monell claim based on failure to train insufficient under /qgbal and Twombly. Case No. 2:22-cv-2047 Page 3 of 4

objections and “fail[] to state sufficient grounds to overturn the Magistrate Judge’s well-reasoned” R&R. Johnson v. Nationwide Ins.,

, Case No.: 2:19-cv-1130, at *1 (S.D. Ohio June 5, 2019). General objections to the entirety of the R&R have “the same effect as would a failure to object.” Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Hum. Sves.,

(6th Cir. 1991). Although Plaintiff's experiences with a variety of arms of local government appear to be sub-par at best, this is not the proper court for Plaintiff to resolve her grievances. Plaintiff is free to re-file this case in state court if she so chooses. lll. CONCLUSION Because Plaintiff fails to articulate any federal claims, Plaintiff's objection is OVERRULED, and the R&R is ADOPTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. } yickadff j /

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE sy UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 2:22-cv-2047 Page 4 of 4