UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

JARVIS HARRIS,

Case No. 1:17-cv-762

Plaintiff,

Barrett, J.

Bowman, M.J.

v.

CITY OF CINCINNATI, et al.,

Defendants.

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

I. Procedural Background

On October 10, 2018, the undersigned recommended that Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss and motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted, that Plaintiff’s motion to 

further amend his complaint be denied, and that this case be closed. (Doc. 42). Plaintiff

has filed objections to that Report and Recommendation (“R&R), which objections remain 

pending before the presiding district judge. 

On November 29, 2018, Plaintiff also filed a motion for pendent, or supplemental 

jurisdiction. (Doc. 49). The undersigned now recommends denial of that motion based 

upon the lack of any basis for federal jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 

II. Analysis

The prior R&R fully explained the reasons for disallowing Plaintiff’s proposed third 

amendment to his complaint, as well as the basis for dismissing this federal lawsuit based 

 

1 Plaintiff also filed a motion seeking an extension of time to respond to the Defendant’s amended response 

to his objections. This R&R is limited to the jurisdictional motion since ordinarily, motions seeking additional 

time in which to file objections (or respond to objections) are ruled on by the presiding district judge. 

Case: 1:17-cv-00762-MRB-SKB Doc #: 52 Filed: 04/19/19 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 357
2

upon a failure to state any cognizable claim. To reiterate only briefly, the undersigned 

agreed with Defendants that Plaintiff’s alleged claim of medical negligence was legally 

insufficient, and that Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims also were insufficient to state a claim as a 

matter of law. 

Unfortunately for Plaintiff, his response merely confirms both: (1) that his

allegations rise to no more than a state law claim of medical negligence 

under state law; and (2) that Defendant UCMC is entitled to dismissal of that 

claim based upon his failure to provide an Affidavit of Merit. In short, 

Plaintiff’s argument does nothing to dispel the conclusion that he has not 

stated a § 1983 claim and that Defendant UCMC’s motion to dismiss should 

be granted in full.

(Doc. 42 at 14). The undersigned further recommended that the motion for judgment on 

the pleadings filed by Defendants Trotta and the City of Cincinnati be granted based upon 

the Heck v. Humphrey bar, and “because Plaintiff’s complaint fail[ed] to adequately allege 

harm caused by any constitutional violation.” (Doc. 42 at 16, citing Monell v. Dept. of Soc. 

Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978)). 

Plaintiff’s motion for “pendant” or supplemental jurisdiction over any state court 

claims should be denied for all of the reasons stated in the prior R&R. First and foremost, 

the undersigned has already recommended dismissal of the state court claim, as well as 

of all federal claims. In addition, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a “related” 

state law claim in the absence of underlying federal question jurisdiction. See Miller v. 

Countrywide Home Loans, 747 F. Supp.2d 947, 953 (S.D. Ohio 2010). In the absence of 

a claim that rests on a federal statute or constitutional law that would give rise to 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over 

Plaintiff’s state law claim. 

Case: 1:17-cv-00762-MRB-SKB Doc #: 52 Filed: 04/19/19 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 358
3

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

For the reasons discussed, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff’s motion to 

retain “pendant” or supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims (Doc. 49) be 

DENIED.

s/ Stephanie K. Bowman 

Stephanie K. Bowman 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 1:17-cv-00762-MRB-SKB Doc #: 52 Filed: 04/19/19 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 359
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

JARVIS HARRIS,

Case No. 1:17-cv-762

Plaintiff,

Barrett, J.

Bowman, M.J.

v.

CITY OF CINCINNATI, et al.,

Defendants.

NOTICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written 

objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of 

the filing date of this R&R. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely 

motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) 

of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support 

of the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN

(14) DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make objections 

in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 

U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

Case: 1:17-cv-00762-MRB-SKB Doc #: 52 Filed: 04/19/19 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 360