UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

QUEEN CHARLOTTE FRANKLIN, Case No. 1:25-cv-77 Plaintiff, Judge Michael R. Barrett v. ADATH ISREAL TEMPLE, et al., ORDER

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by the Magistrate Judge on March 4, 2025. (Doc. 6). Proper notice was given to Plaintiff Charlotte Franklin (who proceeds pro se) under

(b)(1)(C), including notice that she may forfeit rights on appeal if she failed to file objections to the R&R in a timely manner. United States v. Walters,

(6th Cir. 1981); see Berkshire v. Dahl,

(6th Cir. 2019). Franklin has filed a document titled “Asking to Appeal”, (see Doc. 7, PageID 36), which the undersigned will (liberally) construe as an objection. And, as explained below, the Court will overrule her “objection” and adopt the R&R in full. I. BACKGROUND As the Magistrate Judge duly notes, the underlying hand-written complaint in this case is “rambling, difficult to decipher, and virtually incomprehensible.” (Doc. 6, PageID 31). Franklin names as defendants Adath Isreal (sic) Temple, Springfield Township Police, St. Lawrence Church, St. Teresa Church, and the Fairfield Police Department. (Doc. 5, PageID 22). She blames the Springfield Township Police (and its Chief) for “los[ing]” her two daughters in connection with her divorce from her first husband. (Id., PageID 24). Adjusting course, Franklin accuses persons associated with St. Lawrence and St. Teresa of calling the police “on” her (for reasons unspecified). (Id.). In a similar vein, Adath Isreal (sic) refused her entry to pray. (Id.). No details are provided as to any claim against the Fairfield Police Department. (See id.).1 Equally unhelpful, Franklin “has

checked every possible box on the [pro se complaint] form to assert subject matter jurisdiction[.]” (Doc. 6, PageID 31; see Doc. 5, PageID 23). Upon screening the complaint pursuant to

(e)(2)(B), the Magistrate Judge took judicial notice of the fact that sua sponte dismissal had been recommended in several other cases filed by Franklin and that she recently had “picked up the pace” by initiating 20 new cases in a two-week period (between January 31 and February 11, 2025). (Doc. 6, PageID 29). Based upon her failure to meet basic pleading standards, or provide any basis (other than checkmarks) for subject matter jurisdiction, the Magistrate Judge recommends (pursuant

(e)(2)(B)) that Franklin’s

instant complaint be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. II. LEGAL STANDARDS Magistrate Judges are authorized to decide both dispositive and non-dispositive matters pursuant to

and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. When objections are made to a Magistrate Judge’s R&R on a dispositive matter, the Court “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). Upon review, the Court “may accept, reject, or

1 Thoroughly unrelated, Franklin states that her grandfather “left” her a $500 life insurance policy “which the Judges in the court refuse to grant me.” (Doc. 5, PageID 24). As remedy, she asks for $5 million. (Id., PageID 25). modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.; see also

(b)(1). But “[t]he filing of vague, general, or conclusory objections does not meet the requirement of specific objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to object.” Cole

v. Yukins,

(6th Cir. 2001) (citing Miller v. Currie,

(6th Cir. 1995)); see also Spencer v. Bouchard,

(6th Cir. 2006) (“Overly general objections do not satisfy the objection requirement.”) (citing Miller & Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,

, 508–09 (6th Cir. 1991)). And the Court “need not provide de novo review where the objections are ‘frivolous, conclusive or general.’” Mira v. Marshall,

(6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright,

, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982)). III. ANALYSIS Franklin’s objection is rambling and, much like her complaint, nearly indecipherable. “Lord knows I just wanted to pray an ask God to have his angles (sic) to

go before me and bless Ms. Helen for she wants to live and go home.” (Doc. 7, PageID 36–37). She dubs the “evil min[d]ed” church people “judgmental” and expresses gratitude for “every day showing God[‘s] Love to my Brothers and Sisters in Christ Jesus Even the sheriffe officers who think they are better.” (Id., PageID 37). One thing (only) is clear: Franklin fails completely to address the Magistrate Judge’s legal reasoning or challenge the recommendation of dismissal. Thus, under Cole, Miller, Spencer, and Howard, she concomitantly has failed to object, requiring no further analysis by the undersigned district judge. IV. CONCLUSION The Court OVERRULES Franklin’s objection, (Doc. 7), and ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, (Doc. 6), in full. Plaintiff’s complaint, (Doc. 5), is DISMISSED with prejudice (pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)), because it is

frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Furthermore, in consideration of her record of litigation and Magistrate Judge Bowman’s memorandum order (issued February 12, 2025) in Franklin v. J.C. Battle Funeral Home, No. 1:25-cv-52, (Doc. 7), Franklin is FORMALLY WARNED that she is HIGHLY LIKELY to be deemed to be a VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, subject to prefiling restrictions, if she persists in filing additional cases that are factually and legally frivolous under screening standards or lack any reasonable basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. Finally, the Court CERTIFIES that an appeal of this order would not be taken in good faith and DENIES leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A).2 IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Michael R. Barrett JUDGE MICHAEL R. BARRETT

2 Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5), Franklin—a non-prisoner—remains free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Callihan v. Schneider,

(6th Cir. 1999), overruling in part Floyd v. United States Postal Serv.,

(6th Cir. 1997).