Caldwell v. West Chester Police Department et al, No. 1:2021cv00657 - Document 14 (S.D. Ohio 2022)

Court Description: DECISION AND ENTRY adopting the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 5 ). Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 9/7/2022. (rrs)

Download PDF

Caldwell v. West Chester Police Department et al Doc. 14 Case: 1:21-cv-00657-TSB-KLL Doc #: 14 Filed: 09/07/22 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 118 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION RAPHAEL ROBERT CALDWELL, Plaintiff, vs. WEST CHESTER POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : Case No. 1:21-cv-657 Judge Timothy S. Black Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 5) This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on November 8, 2021, submitted a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the complaint be dismissed except for Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims against Defendants Flick, Veeneman, and Popplewell (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”) in their individual capacities. (Doc. 5). The Individual Defendants filed objections. (Doc. 9). Plaintiff did not file objections, but moved to strike the Individual Defendants’ objections. (Doc. 10). As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, the Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Report is adopted in its entirety. Dockets.Justia.com Case: 1:21-cv-00657-TSB-KLL Doc #: 14 Filed: 09/07/22 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 119 The Court first addresses Plaintiff’s motion to strike the objections as untimely. (Doc. 10). The Report was issued on November 8, 2021. (Doc. 5). The Individual Defendants filed their objections on December 23, 2021. (Doc. 9). The docket reflects that the Individual Defendants were served with copies of the complaint, summons, and the Report on December 9, 2021. (Doc. 13). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Individual Defendants had 14 days after service to file their objections, making their objections timely. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to strike is DENIED. Turning to the objections, the Individual Defendants argue that the Magistrate Judge should have dismissed the complaint in its entirety under the doctrine of collateral estoppel and as Heck-barred. (Doc. 9). See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). 1 The Magistrate Judge, when conducting an initial, sua sponte review, concluded that, at such an initial stage, without the benefit of briefing, and construing the complaint liberally, Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims against the Individual Defendants in their individual capacities may proceed. The Magistrate Judge did not consider the Individual Defendants’ legal arguments, which arguments were presented for the first time in their objections and unclear from the face of the complaint. Given the foregoing, the objections are OVERRULED. 2 1 The Individual Defendants also argued that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations but withdrew this argument when responding to the motion to strike. (Doc. 12 at 2, n.1). 2 On its face, the Individual Defendants’ arguments appear to have merit and may be presented at another juncture, such as on a motion to dismiss. The Court, however, declines to consider the arguments at this stage. Plaintiff should be afforded the opportunity to respond to the merits of these arguments, which he has not done since he believed the objections were untimely. 2 Case: 1:21-cv-00657-TSB-KLL Doc #: 14 Filed: 09/07/22 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 120 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above: 1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5) is ADOPTED in its entirety; 2) Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ untimely objections (Doc. 10) is DENIED; 3) The Individual Defendants’ objections (Doc. 9) are OVERRULED. The Individual Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint within fourteen (14) days of this Order; and, 4) The complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), with the exception of plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims against defendants Flick, Veeneman, and Popplewell in their individual capacities. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 9/7/2022 s/Timothy S. Black Timothy S. Black United States District Judge 3

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.