IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

CARDIANAL ANNA VINES CARTER, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. Civil Action 2:13-cv-0039 

 Judge Watson 

 Magistrate Judge King 

COLUMBUS STATE OHIO, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 ORDER AND 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has moved for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis. Doc. No. 1. Upon consideration, the Court concludes 

that the motion is meritorious and it is therefore GRANTED. 

 Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to prosecute her action without 

prepayment of fees or costs and judicial officers who render service 

in this action shall do so as if the costs had been prepaid. 

 However, having performed the initial screen of the Complaint

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court concludes that the Court 

lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that the Complaint fails to 

state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

 Although the Complaint is difficult to decipher, it appears that 

plaintiff intends to name as defendants the State of Ohio, the Mayor 

of the City of Columbus [“Marro Comons”], the Governor of the State of 

Case: 2:13-cv-00039-MHW-NMK Doc #: 2 Filed: 01/17/13 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

Ohio [“Gov Casas”], the Columbus Police Department and “Record 

Officer,” the Ohio Ethics Commission and one Seara Marlone Giffens. 

The Complaint appears to allege that plaintiff has filed a number of 

police reports against Ms. Giffens but no action has been taken 

against her. Plaintiff asks that her medical bills be paid and that 

she be awarded $2 million; she also seeks the “Death Penalty For all 

who Had Their hand in it.” Complaint. 

 A private citizen has no “judicially cognizable interest in the 

prosecution or non-prosecution of another.” Linda R.S. v. Richard D.,

410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). See also Leake v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83, 

86-87 (1981); Peek v. Mitchell, 419 F.2d 575 (6th Cir. 1970); Bond v. 

Thornburgh, 891 F.2d 289 (Table), 1989 WL 149981 (6th Cir. December 

12, 1989). Moreover, governmental officials ordinarily have no 

constitutional duty to protect a citizen by arresting another citizen. 

Deshaney v. Winnebago Cy. Dept. of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 

(1989); Nobles v. Brown, 985 F.2dd 235 (6th Cir. 1992). The 

Complaint therefore fails to state a claim for relief under federal 

law. Moreover, because the case does not present a claim between 

persons of diverse citizenship, the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

 It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the action be dismissed. 

 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,

Case: 2:13-cv-00039-MHW-NMK Doc #: 2 Filed: 01/17/13 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part 

thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 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 

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

 The parties are specifically advised that 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 of the right to appeal the 

decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. 

See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of 

Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States 

v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 

January 17, 2013 s/Norah McCann King 

 (Date) Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 2:13-cv-00039-MHW-NMK Doc #: 2 Filed: 01/17/13 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>