Taulbee et al v. Carver et al, No. 1:2010cv00422 - Document 30 (S.D. Ohio 2011)
Court Description: ORDER granting 16 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendation 25 ; denying as moot 29 Motion to Exclude. Case is Terminated on the docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Herman J. Weber on 12/1/11. (do1)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Taulbee et al v. Carver et al Doc. 30 U N I T ED ST AT ES DI ST RI CT COU RT SOU T H ERN DI ST RI CT OF OH I O WEST ERN DI V I SI ON DON ALD AN D AN N ET T E T AU LBEE, Pla int iffs v. C-1 -1 0 -4 2 2 J AM I E CART ER, e t a l. , De fe nda nt s ORDER T his matter is be fore t he Court upon t he Re port a nd Re c om m e nda t ion of t he U nit e d St a t e s M a gist ra t e J udge (doc . no. 2 5 ), pla int iffs’ obje c t ions (doc . no. 2 7 ); de fe nda nt s’ re sponse (doc . no. 2 8 ) a nd pla int iff’s M ot ion t o Disre ga rd Port ions of De fe nda nt s’ Re sponse (doc . no. 2 9 ) w hic h is DEN I ED AS M OOT c onside ring w ha t follow s. T he M a gist ra t e J udge c onc lude d t ha t t he de fe nda nt s a re e nt it le d t o qua lifie d im m unit y for c la im s m a de a ga inst t he m in t he ir individua l c a pa c it ie s a nd sum m a ry judgm e nt on t he offic ia l c a pa c it y c la im s. T he M a gist ra t e J udge a lso c onc lude d t ha t pla int iffs fa ile d to show de fe nda nt s’ a c t ions or ina c t ions disc rim ina t e d a ga inst t he m a s a dopt ive Dockets.Justia.com 2 pa re nt s. T he M a gist ra t e J udge t he re fore re c om m e nde d t ha t sum m a ry judgm e nt be gra nt e d in fa vor of de fe nda nt s a s t o pla int iffs’ fe de ra l c la im s a nd pla int iffs’ st a t e c la im s should be dism isse d w it hout pre judic e . PLAI N T I FFS’ OBJ ECT I ON S Pla int iffs obje c t to t he M a gist ra t e J udge 's Re port a nd Re c om m e nda t ion for t he follow ing re a sons. J udge We hrm a n m a de fa c t ua l de t e rm ina t ions a s t o va rious issue s, w hic h de t e rm ina t ions a re im prope r a t t his st a ge of t he proc e e dings. T he fa c t t ha t t he c hild's m e dic a l re c ords w e re in de fe nda nt s' posse ssion but w it hhe ld from pla int iffs is e vide nc e of de fe nda nt s' ba d fa it h. T he M a gist ra t e J udge e rre d c onc luding de fe nda nt Ca rve r w a s not ine x pe rie nc e d be c a use she re c e ive d a ba c he lor of a rt s de gre e in 2 0 0 4 a nd w a s hire d by Child Se rvic e s in 2 0 0 5 . She ha d be e n a c a se w ork e r for ove r t hre e a nd one -ha lf ye a rs a t t he t im e of t he re m ova l of t he c hild w he n M s. Ca rve r disre ga rde d t he fa c t t ha t e a c h a nd e ve ry t im e t his e m ot iona lly dist urbe d c hild unsubst a nt ia t e d. m a de a c om pla int a ga inst pla int iffs, it w as 3 I n disc ussing t he fa c t s of t he c a se , J udge We hrm a n re pe a t e dly st a t e s de fe nda nt s' ve rsion of t he fa c t s a s fa c t s, but st a t e s pla int iffs' ve rsion of t he fa c t s in t e rm s of “pla int iffs c ont e nd." I n so doing, it a ppe a rs t ha t t he M a gist ra t e J udge is a c c e pt ing t he de fe nda nt s' ve rsion of t he fa c t s ove r pla int iffs' ve rsion. T he se fa c t ua l de t e rm ina t ions a re im prope r on sum m a ry judgm e nt a nd should be re solve d a t t ria l, a ll suc h a s t o inva lida t e t he re c om m e nda t ions of t he M a gist ra t e J udge . Pla int iffs a rgue t ha t t he M a gist ra t e J udge ignore d t he fa c t t ha t t he juve nile c ourt rule d t ha t proba ble c a use w a s la c k ing t o re m ove t he c hild from t he hom e . T he a lt e rna t e c onc lusion c ould e a sily ha ve be e n re a c he d by a jury, suc h t ha t t he M a gist ra t e J udge should not ha ve re a c he d t his fa c t ua l c onc lusion ba se d upon t he e vide nc e be fore it . T he M a gist ra t e J udge e rre d in a c c e pt ing t he re ve rsa l of t he a buse de t e rm ina t ion by a st a ff a t t orne y w it h t he De pa rt m e nt ; how e ve r, t he sa m e undisput e dly oc c urre d som e five m ont hs a ft e r t he no proba ble c a use finding. 4 T he M a gist ra t e J udge e rre d in finding t he fa c t s a s a lle ge d in t he a ffida vit of Dona ld T a ulbe e a nd t he doc um e nt s a t t a c he d t he re t o w e re not suffic ie nt t o support a finding of ba d fa it h on t he pa rt s of t he individua l de fe nda nt s a nd in pa rt ic ula r on t he pa rt of de fe nda nt Ca rve r. T he y e le c t e d upon to pursue t he ir a c t ion a ga inst pla int iffs ba se d unsubst a nt ia t e d a lle ga t ions of a t rouble d c hild w he n e a c h of t he c hild's prior a lle ga t ions a ga inst t he T a ulbe e s ha d be e n inve st iga t e d a nd unsubst a nt ia t e d. Pla int iffs a rgue t ha t , a t m inim um , a re a sona ble infe re nc e m a y be dra w n from t he de fe nda nt s' a c t ions is t ha t t he finding of no proba ble c a use by t he juve nile c ourt , c ouple d w it h t he re m ova l of a ll of t he c hildre n from t he T a ulbe e s’ hom e a nd t he fa ilure t o c orre c t t he re gist ry or re inst a t e t he T a ulbe e s' fost e r c a re lic e nse for ove r five m ont hs a ft e r t he juve nile c ourt finding is suffic ie nt t o e st a blish m a lic ious int e nt on t he pa rt s of de fe nda nt s or a t m inim um , a la c k of good fa it h in t he ir de a lings w it h t he T a ulbe e s. 5 T he M a gist ra t e J udge e rre d in finding t ha t t he pla int iffs ha ve not de m onst ra t e d a n e qua l prot e c t ion c la im be c a use , a s J udge We hrm a n a c k now le dge s, re a sona ble m inds c ould diffe r a s t o w he t he r t he fa c t s a nd c irc um st a nc e s just ifie d L.T .'s re m ova l from pla int iff's hom e . Ac c ordingly, t he issue s of m a lic ious int e nt a nd qua lifie d im m unit y should not be re solve d on sum m a ry judgm e nt . Wit h re ga rd t o pla int iffs' c la im s a ga inst t he de fe nda nt s in t he ir offic ia l c a pa c it y, t he M a gist ra t e J udge 's re lia nc e on M c Ca be v. M a honing Count y Childre n Se rvic e s Bd. , 2 0 1 0 WL 3 3 2 6 9 0 9 a t * 6 (N .D. Ohio Aug. 2 0 , 2 0 1 0 ) is m ispla c e d. Fina lly, w hile pla int iffs disa gre e w it h t he M a gist ra t e J udge a s t o t he ir st a t e la w a nd m a lic ious prose c ut ion c la im s, pla int iffs do not oppose t he dism issa l of t hose c la im s w it hout pre judic e . DEFEN DAN T S’ RESPON SE De fe nda nt s m a k e t he follow ing re sponse s t o pla int iffs’ obje c t ions. Pla int iffs a t t e m pt t o pin lia bilit y on de fe nda nt s for a lle ge dly w rongly re m oving L.T . from t he T a ulbe e house hold w he n it w a s t he loc a l juve nile c ourt t ha t issue d t he orde r for re m ova l. Ca se la w show s t ha t in 6 c irc um st a nc e s suc h a s t he se , a pla int iff m ust a t t e m pt t o pursue t he issuing c ourt , not t he inve st iga t ory a ge nc y. Be c a use t he juve nile c ourt issue d t he orde r t o re m ove L.T ., de fe nda nt s a re not lia ble for a ny § 1 9 8 3 viola t ions. De fe nda nt s a rgue t ha t pla int iffs ha ve fa ile d t o de m onst ra t e w hy Sc iot o Count y, Ohio doing busine ss a s Sc iot o Count y Childre n Se rvic e s (SCCS) w ould int e nt iona lly w it hhold m e dic a l inform a t ion or t ha t SCCS a nd it s e m ploye e s m a de a ny m isre pre se nt a t ions t o pla int iffs. Be c a use pla int iffs ha ve no e vide nc e show ing t ha t de fe nda nt SCCS m isre pre se nt e d L.T .’s he a lt h st a t us, or t ha t it w a s som e how SCCS’ obliga t ion t o provide sa id inform a t ion, t he re c a n be no c onst it ut iona l viola t ion for a ny c le a rly e st a blishe d right . T he M a gist ra t e J udge found no fa c t s indic a t ing M s. Ca rve r w a s ine x pe rie nc e d or la c k e d t he prope r inve st iga t ory t ra ining, a s she ha d a B.A. in soc iology a nd ha d be e n a c a se w ork e r for a lm ost four (4 ) ye a rs a t 7 t he t im e of t he inve st iga t ion. N ow he re do t he fa c t s indic a t e t ha t M s. Robine t t e w e nt w it h M s. Ca rve r be c a use M s. Ca rve r or he r SCCS supe rvisors w e re c onc e rne d t ha t M s. Ca rve r ne e de d support from a m ore se a sone d inve st iga t or. While pla int iffs a lso a rgue t ha t t he M a gist ra t e J udge e rre d w he n he re je c t e d t he e qua l prot e c t ion c la im , t he M a gist ra t e J udge disc usse d t his issue in-de pt h, a pplying re le va nt , a pplic a ble la w . CON CLU SI ON U pon a de novo re vie w of t he re c ord, e spe c ia lly in light of pla int iffs’ obje c t ions a nd t he re c ord, t he Court finds t ha t pla int iffs’ obje c t ions ha ve e it he r be e n a de qua t e ly a ddre sse d a nd prope rly dispose d of by t he J udge or pre se nt no pa rt ic ula rize d a rgum e nt s t ha t w a rra nt spe c ific re sponse s by t his Court . T he Court finds t ha t t he M a gist ra t e J udge ha s a c c ura t e ly se t fort h t he c ont rolling princ iple s of la w a nd prope rly a pplie d t he m t o t he pa rt ic ula r fa c t s of t his c a se a nd a gre e s w it h t he M a gist ra t e J udge . 8 Ac c ordingly, t he Court he re by ADOPT S AN D I N CORPORAT ES BY REFEREN CE H EREI N t he Re port a nd Re c om m e nda t ion of t he U nit e d St a t e s M a gist ra t e J udge (doc . no. 2 5 ). De fe nda nt s’ M ot ion for Sum m a ry J udgm e nt (doc . no. 1 6 ) is GRAN T ED a s t o pla int iffs’ fe de ra l c la im s a nd pla int iffs’ st a t e c la im s a re DI SM I SSED WI T H OU T PREJ U DI CE. T his c a se is T ERM I N AT ED on t he doc k e t of t his Court . I T I S SO ORDERED. s/H e rm a n J . We be r H e rm a n J . We be r, Se nior J udge U nit e d St a t e s Dist ric t Court
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
