UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

JAMES JONES, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:18-cv-403 

vs. Dlott, J. 

 Bowman, M.J. 

CITY OF FOREST PARK, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 On April 11, 2019, Magistrate Judge Bowman issued a Report and 

Recommendation that Plaintiffs’ second motion to amend be denied and that the County 

Defendants’ motions to dismiss be granted. (Doc. 40). Purportedly in response to the 

Report and Recommendation, Plaintiffs filed a third motion to amend the complaint. (See 

Doc. 41). Plaintiffs’ motion asserts that they are “correcting many of the defects 

complained of and thus, meeting the minimum pleading standards” against these County 

Defendants. (Doc. 41-1, PAGEID# 246). Plaintiffs’ motion further asserts that 

amendments are made in “paragraphs 3, 11, 16 [and] 18 to add when persons are 

supervisors, policy and or custom violations and to add common law negligence.” Id. 

Plaintiff also filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, which remains pending 

before the District Judge. Upon careful review, the undersigned finds that Plaintiffs’ 

motion to amend is not well-taken and should be denied. 

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[t]he court should 

freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Rule 15 

reinforces “the principle that cases ‘should be tried on their merits rather than the 
2 

technicalities of pleadings.’” Moore v. City of Paducah, 790 F.2d 557, 559 (6th Cir. 1986) 

(quoting Tefft v. Seward, 689 F.2d 637, 639 (6th Cir.1982)). The grant or denial of a 

request to amend a complaint is left to the broad discretion of the trial court. Gen’l Elec. 

Co. v. Sargent & Lundy, 916 F.2d 1119, 1130 (6th Cir. 1990). In exercising this discretion, 

the trial court may consider such factors as “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on 

the part of a movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously 

allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment 

[and] futility of the amendment[.]” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). See also 

Brumbalough v. Camelot Care Ctrs., Inc., 427 F.3d 996, 1001 (6th Cir. 2005). 

“Amendment of a complaint is futile when the proposed amendment would not 

permit the complaint to survive a motion to dismiss.” Miller v. Calhoun Cnty., 408 F.3d 

803, 817 (6th Cir. 2005). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain 

sufficient factual allegations to state a claim that is plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570. 

Plaintiffs’ third attempt to amend their complaint is futile for the reasons stated in 

the prior Report and Recommendation. (See doc. 40). Namely, Plaintiffs still have not 

identified with any particularity how any actions alleged violated their constitutional rights; 

nor does it describe in any detail what, if any, damages the Plaintiffs suffered therefrom. 

As such, Plaintiffs’ proposed amendments do not comport with the pleading requirements 

outlined in Twomby and Iqbal.

 For these reasons, it is herein RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to 

file a third amended complaint (Docs. 41) should be DENIED. Furthermore, no additional 
3 

motions to amend shall be filed until such time as a decision is rendered on the pending 

Report and Recommendation. (See Doc. 40). 

 /s Stephanie K. Bowman 

 Stephanie K. Bowman 

 United States Magistrate Judge 
4 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

JAMES JONES, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:18-cv-403 

vs. Dlott, J. 

 Bowman, M.J. 

CITY OF FOREST PARK, 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).