UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT F. STEARNES-TAYLOR,

Plaintiff / Petitioner,

 Civil Action 2:11-cv-218

v. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.

 Magistrate Judge E.A. Preston Deavers

THE STATE OF OHIO,

Defendant / Respondent.

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff-Petitioner, Robert F. Stearnes-Taylor, filed this action on March 11, 2011,

seeking in forma pauperis status. This matter is before the Court for consideration of Mr.

Stearnes-Taylor’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1), which the

Court GRANTS and his request for Counsel (ECF No. 1-2), which the Court DENIES. The

Court is unable to ascertain the nature of Mr. Stearnes-Taylor’s claims from the unnamed

“complaint” that he filed.1

 Regardless of whether the complaint is characterized as a petition for

writ of habeas corpus, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court dismiss this action

because there is no basis for awarding Mr. Stearnes-Taylor the relief he requests. 

In his unnamed complaint (ECF No. 3), which is in the form of a letter written to Ohio

Attorney General Mike DeWine, Mr. Stearnes-Taylor references his state and federal

1

On his civil cover sheet, he checked the box for civil rights habeas corpus petition, but

he also checked boxes indicating that the nature of his suit was contract, torts, real property, and

property rights, among others. The Clerk docketed his unnamed complaint as a petition for a

writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 3.) 

Case: 2:11-cv-00218-EAS-EPD Doc #: 20 Filed: 08/31/11 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
convictions, but does not appear to challenge them. He asks Mr. Dewine to “work out [his]

release from the[] attached Federal Sentence . . . .” (Id. at 6.) He also appears to request “a

credit-line backed by the state of Ohio” or the issuance of “community building bonds” to

finance the charitable activities he intends to pursue upon his release. (Id.) In a later letter to the

Court (ECF No. 16), Mr. Stearnes-Taylor again indicates that he is requesting the Court to order

the state of Ohio to issue community building bonds and to have Ohio’s leaders work with him

on his charitable pursuits. He expresses his concern that he may not be awarded relief in time

for his release, which, at the time, he anticipated would be July 26, 2011. 

 Regardless of whether the Court construes Mr. Stearnes-Taylor’s unnamed complaint as

a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the Court is required to conduct a preliminary review to

determine if he may proceed. If construed as a habeas action, Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (Habeas Rules) provides that district

courts “must promptly examine” state prisoner habeas petitions and must dismiss the petition

“[i]f it plainly appears . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” If not, the Court must

screen the action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A to identify cognizable claims and to

recommend sua sponte dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint, or any portion of it, which is

frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. 

The undersigned has reviewed Mr. Stearnes-Taylor’s unnamed complaint, and finds that

he has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In addition, the undersigned

finds that he is not entitled to the relief he requests (i.e., an order requiring Ohio to finance his

charitable pursuits upon his release). Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court sua

sponte DISMISS Mr. Stearnes-Taylor’s action. 

2

Case: 2:11-cv-00218-EAS-EPD Doc #: 20 Filed: 08/31/11 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that

party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and

Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part in

question, as well as the basis for objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object to the Report and

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and

waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. See, e.g., Pfahler v. Nat’l Latex

Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that “failure to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendations constituted a waiver of [the defendant’s] ability to appeal the district

court’s ruling”); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that

defendant waived appeal of district court’s denial of pretrial motion by failing to timely object to

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). Even when timely objections are filed, appellate

review of issues not raised in those objections is waived. Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981, 994

(6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s report, which fails to specify the

issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for appeal . . . .”) (citation omitted)).

Date: August 31, 2011 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers

 United States Magistrate Judge

 

3

Case: 2:11-cv-00218-EAS-EPD Doc #: 20 Filed: 08/31/11 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>