UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

CHARLOTTE L. FRANKLIN- SAMUELS,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:25-cv-41

v. JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE Magistrate Judge Bowman PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff Charlotte L. Franklin-Samuels is well-acquainted with the federal courts. At the beginning of 2025, during a two-week span, Franklin-Samuels, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), filed twenty lawsuits in this District, many of which make nearly incomprehensible (and sometimes illegible) allegations involving “black magic.”1 The Magistrate Judge assigned to this case, exercising her authority under

(e)(2), screened Franklin-Samuels’ Complaint here for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In her resulting Report and Recommendation (R&R, Doc. 5), the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The R&R also formally warns Franklin-Samuels that continuing to file cases that are dismissed on

1 Franklin-Samuels’ litigation history is more thoroughly detailed in one of the Court’s previous Orders dismissing another one of Franklin-Samuels’ many complaints. Franklin v. United States Postal Service, 1:25-cv-60,

, at *1 nn.1 & 2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2025). initial screening will likely result in her designation as a vexatious litigator. For the reasons briefly discussed below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Doc. 5) in full, OVERRULES Franklin-Samuels’ Objection (Doc. 6), DISMISSES WITH

PREJUDICE Franklin-Samuels’ Complaint (Doc. 4), and FORMALLY WARNS Franklin-Samuels that if she files any new cases that are factually and legally frivolous or fail to state a claim for relief under screening standards, the Court will declare her a vexatious litigator. When she filed her Complaint, Franklin-Samuels also sought leave to pursue this action IFP. (Doc. 1). In connection with granting that motion, the Magistrate Judge exercised her authority to screen the Complaint for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted.

(e)(2)(B). Based on her review, she issued an R&R concluding that the Complaint failed to state a claim. (Doc. 5, #60). Within the required fourteen-day timeline, Franklin-Samuels objected. (Doc. 6). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), “district courts review an R&R de novo after a party files a timely objection.” Bates v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., No. 1:22-cv-337,

, at *1 (S.D. Ohio July 5, 2023). Upon review, the

Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But that review extends “only to any portion [of the R&R] to which a proper objection was made.” Bates,

, at *1 (quotation omitted). A proper objection, moreover, is one that is “clear enough to enable the district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.” Miller v. Currie,

(6th Cir. 1995). “An ‘objection’ that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate’s suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented

before, is not an ‘objection’ as that term is used in this context.” VanDiver v. Martin,

(E.D. Mich. 2004). And a court need not provide de novo review where the objections are frivolous or conclusory. Mira v. Marshall,

(6th Cir. 1986); Slater v. Potter,

, 512–13 (6th Cir. 2002). For unobjected portions of the R&R, “the advisory committee notes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) suggest that the Court still must ‘satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’”

Redmon v. Noel, No. 1:21-cv-445,

, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 13, 2021) (collecting cases). In this case, Franklin-Samuels asserts claims against President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Governor Mike DeWine, Hamilton County Clerk of Court Pavan Parikh,2 Mayor Pat Mueller, and Fort Hamilton Hughes Hospital. (Doc. 4, #40). But the R&R found that Franklin-Samuels’ factual allegations as to those

Defendants are “generally illogical and incomprehensible.” (Doc. 5, #60). Finding no “factual content or context” from which the Magistrate Judge could reasonably infer any violation of Franklin-Samuels’ rights, the R&R recommends dismissal for failure to state a claim. (Id.).

2 Franklin-Samuels named Parikh as “Mayor,” (Doc. 4, #41), but as the R&R notes, that is an incorrect title, (Doc. 5, #60 n.3). Franklin-Samuels objected. (Doc. 6). Her Objection, though, isn’t so much an objection as it is a declaration of her faith in God. (See

at #65–67). Nowhere does Franklin-Samuels’ filing mention the R&R, much less make specific objections to it.

Regardless, after reviewing the Complaint, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that it fails to state a claim. The Court further notes that the Complaint is wholly frivolous. Fairly illustrating the tenor of her allegations, Franklin-Samuels claims that the “[G]ov[ernor] of Columbus had [her] locked up … [in] Rhodes Hospital” where a nurse “stabbed [her] arm and all [her] veins collapsed and disappeared”; that “white people were trying to get rid of [her] with black magic”; and that “male and female people of God’s have tried to take [her] life

in hospitals.” (Doc. 4, #42–43). As the Magistrate Judge observed, none of those allegations set forth a rational claim upon which relief can be granted. To the contrary, those are precisely the sort of far-fetched allegations that lead courts to dismiss complaints. Greathouse v. Maglinger, No. 4:22-cv-P64,

, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Sept. 7, 2022) (collecting cases). Beyond recommending dismissal, the Magistrate Judge formally warned

Franklin-Samuels that “she is highly likely to be deemed to be vexatious and made subject to prefiling limitations if she persists in filing additional cases that lack any reasonable basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction and/or that are factually and legally frivolous under screening standards.” (Doc. 5, #62). The Court joins in that warning here. Significant judicial resources and court time have been spent screening Franklin-Samuels’ numerous complaints, most (if not all) of which appear to make wholly frivolous allegations. As such, the Court FORMALLY WARNS Franklin- Samuels that filing any new cases that are factually and legally frivolous or fail to state a claim for relief under screening standards will result in her designation as a vexatious litigator. For the reasons explained, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Doc. 5) in full, OVERRULES Franklin-Samuels’ Objection (Doc. 6), and DISMISSES the matter WITH PREJUDICE because the Complaint fails to state a claim.

(e)(2)(B). Beyond that, the Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to

(a)(3), that an appeal of this Order would not be made in good faith, thus DENYING Franklin-Samuels leave to appeal IFP. But as a non-prisoner, Franklin- Samuels may nonetheless apply to proceed IFP in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); Callithan v. Schneider,

, 803 (6th Cir. 1999); Miller v. Hudson, No. 1:24-ev-98,

, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 19, 2024), appeal dismissed, No. 24-3384,

(6th Cir. June 3, 2024). Finally, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment and TERMINATE this case on its docket.

SO ORDERED.

April 10, 2025 DATE DOUGLAS R. COLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE