Franklin v. Children's Hospital

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION QUEEN CHARLOTTE FRANKLIN, : : Plaintiff, : Case No. 1:25-cv-80 : vs. : Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins : CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL, et al., : : Defendants. :

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) issued by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on March 10, 2025. Magistrate Judge Litkovitz recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because her complaint is frivolous and fails to state a claim with an arguable basis in law over which this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. No objections have been filed and the time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired.1 Having carefully reviewed the comprehensive findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge and finding no clear error, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (advisory committee notes from 1983 amendment) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation”); see e.g., Roane v. Warden of Corr. Reception Ctr., No. 2:22-cv-2768, 2022 WL 16535903, at *1 (S.D. Ohio On March 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed a response to the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Children’s Hospital.

See Doc. 13. Plaintiff’s response is largely illegible. To the extent that the Court can decipher Plaintiff’s filing, it does not appear that Plaintiff sets forth any objections to the Report and Recommendation.

Oct. 28, 2022). Accordingly, Plaintiffs complaint is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court certifies that an appeal of this Order would lack an arguable basis in law or in fact and thus would not be taken in good faith. The Court thus DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. In accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5), Plaintiff remains free to file a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999).

Plaintiff is reminded that she has been FORMALLY WARNED by U.S. District Judge Douglas R. Cole that if she files any new cases that are factually and legally frivolous or said case(s) fail to state a claim for relief under the screening standards set forth in the previous order, the Court will declare her a vexatious litigator. Queen Charlotte Franklin v. United States Postal Service, et al, No. 1:25-cv-60, Doc. 7.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2025 □□ eg P. <4 United States District Judge