1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Ronald Lee Brinson

 Plaintiff,

 

 -vs- Case No. 1:18-cv-096

Department of Commerce Judge Michael R. Barrett

 Defendant.

ORDER

I. BACKGROUND

This matter is before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 4) and Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. 5) thereto.

On February 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint (Doc. 3) against the Ohio 

Department of Commerce. On the same day, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis (Doc. 1), which the Magistrate Judge granted on February 14, 2018. (Doc. 2). 

Plaintiff asserts this court has subject matter jurisdiction over his complaint pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3). (Doc. 3, at 2). In relevant part, Plaintiff’s complaint states:

On or about Jan[uary] 29th, 2018, I . . . [received] from Greater Cincinnati 

Behavioral 2525 Victory Parkway 45206 a form from the Unclaimed Funds 

w[ith] the amount of 22.15 Million Dollars and no cents.

At the same time while watching [the] State of the Union speech by 

President Donald Trump I [received] a check for $25.57 cents under Gross 

amount.

I have been [waiting] (18) Eighteen years for this Money I did not even 

know I had it piled like that, but I worked for every Dollar of that money.

And I also earned the Unclaimed Fund Co. found money I did not receive 

off and on. I spent over 36 years in prison for crime I didn’t do, but when I 

set my mind to do something, I Get The Job Done!
2

(Id. at 3). Plaintiff did not indicate what relief he desired from this Court.1 (Id. at 4).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Magistrate Judge performed a sua 

sponte review of Plaintiff’s complaint to determine if the complaint, or any portion of it, 

should be dismissed for frivolousness, maliciousness, failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted or seeking monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 

from relief. Upon conclusion of the review, the Magistrate Judge issued the R&R and

recommended the case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to 

state a claim. (Doc. 4, at 4). The Magistrate Judge reasoned that Plaintiff entirely failed 

to allege any conduct by the Department of Commerce to support a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

claim or any other claim under federal law. (Id. at 4).

On March 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed the objection (Doc. 5) to the R&R. In relevant part, 

the objection states:

I [felt] a great [defamation] of [character] was perpetrated here when I was 

searching for unclaimed funds I might have missed over the years. After 

18 years, 22.15 look like 22.15 million, was only 22 dollars and 15 cents. I 

[received] from the Department of Commerce a form in December. I had it 

sent to the Greater Cincinnati Behavioral. When I filled out the form I sent 

it back to them to [receive] a check . . . I went to the agency to receive my 

check [and] got my mail to find the envelope was open by my payee 

sherry, I ask[ed] her why did she open my mail and she stated, “I wanted 

to.” If mail doesn’t come from SSI she has no right to open any other mail 

of mine . . .

At the same time the State of the Union was on t.v. and the United States 

was in debt and the president robbed the nation and took this money 

thinking it was 22.15 million but in reality it was 22 dollars and 15 cents.

It [i]s clear to see this action is not delusional in the form of a 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 Civil Rights complaint in which I’m asking the court for the 22.15 

 1 It appears Plaintiff misunderstood the “Relief” section of the complaint form as, instead of indicating what 

relief he sought from this Court, in this case, Plaintiff wrote down the relief he had sought in a previous 

lawsuit against the Texas Department of Correction. (Doc. 3, at 4).
3

million for [defamation] of [character], something is fish[y] here, and I leave 

it up to the [Court] to find out where the mistake came in.

(Doc. 5, at 1-2).

II. ANALYSIS

1) Standard of review.

Reports and Recommendations issued by a magistrate judge are subject to review 

by the district court when it is shown the magistrate judge’s conclusions therein are 

erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The district judge “must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The district judge must then “accept, reject, or 

modify the recommendation disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to 

the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id. 

2) Plaintiff fails to properly object to the R&R.

A litigant cannot raise a new claim in an objection to a magistrate judge’s R&R. Murr 

v. U.S., 200 F.3d 895, 902 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000); see also Thrower v. Montgomery, 

50 Fed. Appx. 262, 264 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 

1995) and Howard v. HHS, 932 F.2d 505, 508-09 (6th Cir. 1991)). “A party who files 

objections to a magistrate [judge]’s report in order to preserve the right to appeal must 

be mindful of the purpose of such objections: to provide the district court ‘with the 

opportunity to consider the specific contentions of the parties and to correct any errors 

immediately.” United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981); see also 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 144 (1985).

Here, Plaintiff fails to make a proper objection. In the objection, Plaintiff contends 

that someone defamed his character, though it is not clear who Plaintiff accuses of such 
4

conduct. Moreover, Plaintiff’s defamation claim stems from a new set of facts— that an 

employee of an agency (either the Ohio Department of Commerce or Greater Cincinnati 

Behavioral) opened Plaintiff’s mail—not presented in the original complaint, and 

therefore the Court will not entertain the objection as proper.

3) Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

“A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain a short and plain statement of 

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A 

pleading fails to state a claim when the pleading does not contain sufficient relevant 

facts to sustain the claim. Aschroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A pleading 

carries sufficient relevant facts to sustain the claim if the facts contained in the pleading, 

accepted as true, allow a court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is 

liable for the alleged violation. Id. at 678. In particular, a plaintiff filing a complaint 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) must present sufficient facts that would allow 

reasonable minds to determine the defendant deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by 

the Constitution and laws.

Complaints filed by a pro se plaintiff are to be “liberally construed” no matter how 

inartfully pleaded. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 

429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). However, courts should not go so far as identifying and 

addressing arguments the plaintiff failed to assert. Johnson v. Riviana Foods Inc., 2017 

U.S. App. LEXIS 24525, *8 (6th Cir. 2017). 

Here, upon a review of the original complaint, the Court holds the Magistrate Judge 

correctly determined Plaintiff failed to state a claim. Plaintiff filed his complaint pursuant 

to § 1343(a)(3), but the complaint is devoid of any factual allegations indicating the Ohio
5

Department of Commerce deprived Plaintiff of any rights secured by the Constitution 

and federal laws. In the objection, presents an almost entirely new fact pattern and an 

allegation of defamation. Even assuming, without deciding, that Plaintiff’s objection was

proper, there are no factual allegations that could lead reasonable minds to conclude 

the Ohio Department of Commerce defamed Plaintiff.2 The factual allegations of the 

objection are that an employee of an agency told Plaintiff that she opened Plaintiff’s mail 

because she wanted to. No matter how liberally the objection is construed, it is 

impossible to construe this statement by the agent as defamatory to the Plaintiff’s 

character.3

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff has failed to make a proper objection to the Report and Recommendation 

filed by the Magistrate Judge. Moreover, Plaintiff’s objection does not remedy the issues 

of the complaint. The Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation and Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Michael R. Barrett

 Michael R. Barrett

 United States District Judge

 2 Additionally, a person is not Constitutionally or federally protected from defamation under § 1343(a)(3).

Even if Plaintiff had been able to provide sufficient facts to support a defamation claim, this Court would 

lack subject matter jurisdiction. 3 To establish defamation, the plaintiff must show (1) that a false statement of fact was made, (2) that the 

statement was defamatory, (3) that the statement was published, (4) that the plaintiff suffered injury as a 

proximate result of the publication, and (5) that the defendant acted with the requisite degree of fault in 

publishing the statement. Am. Chem. Soc’y v. Leadscope, Inc., 98 Ohio St. 3d 366, 389, 2012-Ohio-4193, 

978 N.E.2d 832 (citing Pollack v. Rashid, 117 Ohio App.3d 361, 368, 690 N.E.2d 903 (1996)).