Barrett v. Marbley et al, No. 2:2014cv00216 - Document 17 (S.D. Ohio 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 6 Report and Recommendations.; denying 12 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Peter C. Economus on 10/1/2014. (ds)

Download PDF

Barrett v. Marbley et al Doc. 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ANTHONY C. BARRETT, Plaintiff, v. ALGENON L. MARBLEY, Defendant. Case No. 2:14-cv-0216 Judge Peter C. Economus Magistrate Judge Kemp MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court for consideration of Magistrate Judge Terrence P. Kemp s Report & Recommendation ( R & R ) (ECF No. 6), and Plaintiff Anthony Barrett s ( Mr. Barrett ) Objection thereto (ECF No. 8). For the reasons that follow, the Court OVERRULES the Objection, ADOPTS the R & R, and DISMISSES this case for failure to state a claim. Mr. Barrett has also filed a Motion for Default Judgment. (ECF No. 12.) The Court DENIES this motion as MOOT. In the instant action, Mr. Barrett, a prisoner, filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1.) Section 1915(e)(2) provides that in proceedings in forma pauperis, the court may dismiss the case under certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Section 1915A further provides that in any prisoner case, the court shall dismiss the complaint or any portion of it if, it appears upon an initial screening that the complaint, is frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. In the complaint filed in this case, Mr. Barrett asks for his sentence to be vacated, and he requests one billion dollars in compensatory damages. (ECF No. 5.) Magistrate Judge Kemp dismissed this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to a Dockets.Justia.com screening under Section 1915A. (ECF No. 6 at 1.) Magistrate Judge Kemp found that the doctrine of immunity barred the majority of Mr. Barrett s claims. (Id. at 4-9.) Mr. Barrett filed an Objection to Magistrate Judge Kemp s R & R. (ECF No. 8.) A district court must review de novo specific objections to a magistrate judge s R & R, and may accept, reject, or modify any portion of the magistrate judge s findings or recommendations. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The parties have the duty to pinpoint those portions of the magistrate s report that the district court must specially consider. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The objections must be clear enough to enable the district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious. Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995). [O]bjections disput[ing] the correctness of the magistrate s recommendation but fail[ing] to specify the findings . . . believed [to be] in error are too general. Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d 721, 725 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Miller, 50 F.3d at 380). The Court discerns that Mr. Barrett only makes one objection. Mr. Barrett objects to Magistrate Judge Kemp s recommendation to dismiss this case because the doctrine of judicial immunity bars any claims against Judge Algenon L. Marbley. Specifically, Mr. Barrett objects to the R & R because the Magistrate Judge relied on Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871). (ECF No. 8 at 5.) Mr. Barrett argues that under Erie v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), no cases can be cited that are prior to 1939. (ECF No. 8.) Mr. Barrett asserts that [t]here can be no mixing of the old law with the new law. Mr. Barrett s argument misses the mark. Mr. Barrett correctly notes that Erie v. Tompkins deals with the application of federal common law. Erie v. Tompkins, however, dealt with the application of federal common law in diversity cases alleging state law claims. In Erie v. 2 Tompkins, the Supreme Court found that [e]xcept in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state. 304 U.S. at 78. In the matter before this Court, Mr. Barrett alleges claims that arise under federal law. Therefore, Erie v. Tompkins does not apply. Moreover, the Magistrate Judge only cited Bradley v. Fisher to lay the historical foundation for his discussion of the doctrine of judicial immunity. The Magistrate Judge relied on a number of new cases in his R & R to explain why judicial immunity applies here, including: Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), Ireland v. Tunis, 113 F.3d 1435,1441 (6th Cir. 1997), Henderson v. Alabama, Case No. 07-cv-167, 2008 WL 4265049, at *5 (S.D. Ala. Sept. 12, 2008), and Mikkilineni v. Com. Of Pennsylvania, Case No. 02-cv-1205, 2003 WL 21854754, at *5 (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2003). (ECF No. 6.) Mr. Barrett fails to posit any other objection. This Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge s Report and Recommendation de novo, and finds that it is well-supported. This Court finds that Mr. Barrett s objections are without merit. For the reasons discussed above, the Court OVERRULES the objections (ECF No. 8.), ADOPTS the R & R, and DISMISSES this case for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court DENIES all other pending motions (ECF No. 15.) as MOOT. Further, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this dismissal could not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED. 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.