Opinion
Case No. 2:13-cv-103
07-29-2013
Jose A. Rodriguez, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiffs filed this civil rights action against the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation, an agency of the State of Ohio, the Wood Count Sheriff's Office, and unnamed employees of those entities. On February 15, 2013, the magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation pursuant to the initial screening of the complaint required under 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e) and 1915A, and recommended that the action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim for relief, citing several reasons. On February 25, 2013, an order was entered denying plaintiffs' objections, adopting the report and recommendation and dismissing the action.
On June 14, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). On June 17, 2013, the magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation recommending that the motion be denied. On June 24, 2013, plaintiffs filed an objection to the report and recommendation. This matter is now before the court for consideration of the report and recommendation.
Plaintiffs filed a timely objection to the report and recommendation pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). If a party objects within the allotted time to a report and recommendation, the court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).
Rule 60(b)(1) states that the court "may relieve a party ... from a final judgment, order, or proceeding" due to "(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." A claim of legal error falls within the category of mistake under Rule 60(b)(1). See Stokes v. Williams, 475 F.3d 732, 735 (6th Cir. 2007); Pierce v. United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund, 770 F.2d 449, 451 (6th Cir. 1985).
Plaintiffs argue that in recommending dismissal of their complaint, the magistrate judge erroneously stated that the state law claims advanced by plaintiffs could not proceed against the Wood County defendants pending resolution of the issue of their immunity under Ohio Rev. Code §9.86 by the Ohio Court of Claims. Plaintiffs note that Wood County is a political subdivision, and that the Wood County defendants, as employees of a political subdivision, are not state employees whose entitlement to immunity must be determined by the Ohio Court of Claims.
The magistrate judge never stated in the report and recommendation of February 15, 2013, that the state law claims against the Wood County defendants had to be submitted to the Ohio Court of Claims. Rather, that reasoning was confined to the state law claims against the employees of the state agency (the Ohio Bureau of Investigation). At the beginning of the report and recommendation, the magistrate judge stated that the parties included "an agency of the State of Ohio [referring to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation], the Wood County Sheriff's Office and unnamed individuals employed by those two entities." Doc. 10, February 15, 2013 Report and Recommendation, p. 1. The magistrate judge later noted:
Plaintiffs also assert state law claims. However, state employees may not be sued on state law claims unless and until the Ohio Court of Claims has determined that the employees are not entitled to immunity under Ohio law, O.R.C. §9.86.... Plaintiffs' state law claims against the employees of the state agency cannot proceed.Doc. 10, p. 4 (emphasis supplied). This paragraph makes no reference to the Wood County Sheriff's Office, the other entity mentioned at the beginning of the report and recommendation, or to employees of the Wood County Sheriff's Office. Rather, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the claims against the Wood County defendants on other grounds.
There was no error of law in the application of §9.86 either in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, or in this court's order of February 25, 2013, adopting that report and recommendation. This court hereby adopts the report and recommendation (Doc. 19) of the magistrate judge recommending that the motion for relief from judgment be denied. Plaintiffs' objection (Doc. 21) is denied. The motion for relief from judgment (Doc. 18) is denied.
______________________
James L. Graham
United States District Judge