IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Cornelius Clemons,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:18-cv-954

John Kasich,

Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

This is an action filed by Cornelius Clemons, proceeding pro

se, against Ohio Governor John Kasich. In his complaint, plaintiff

cites several statutes, including 42 U.S.C. §§1981 and 1983. 

However, plaintiff’s complaint focuses primarily on a mandamus

action he previously filed against Governor Kasich in the Ohio

Supreme Court. In that case, plaintiff petitioned the Ohio Supreme

Court to order Governor Kasich to pay him worker’s compensation

benefits which he alleged were due to him. Governor Kasich filed

a motion to dismiss the mandamus action, which was granted by the

Ohio Supreme Court. Plaintiff now claims in the instant case that

he was deprived of property without due process of law when

Governor Kasich moved to dismiss the state mandamus action. 

The magistrate judge conducted an initial screen of

plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2). In an

initial screen report and recommendation filed on September 11,

2018, the magistrate judge granted plaintiff’s request to proceed

in forma pauperis, but recommended that plaintiff’s complaint be

dismissed. See Doc. 3. The magistrate judge also recommended

denying plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, his

amended motion for a preliminary injunction, and his ex parte
motion to expedite the case.

The magistrate judge observed that plaintiff’s complaint

challenges the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court in the state

mandamus action. The magistrate judge correctly noted that a

review of the Ohio Supreme Court decision by this court is barred

under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust

Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v.

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The magistrate judge also concluded

that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim for relief

against Governor Kasich. Plaintiff alleges that Governor Kasich,

in his official capacity, moved to dismiss the mandamus action. 

The magistrate judge noted that plaintiff has sued Governor Kasich

in his individual capacity, but has failed to allege that Governor

Kasich had any personal involvement in the asserted deprivation of

plaintiff’s constitutional rights. The magistrate judge further

observed that plaintiff’s only allegations against Governor Kasich

relate to the filing of a motion to dismiss in the state mandamus

action. Plaintiff has failed to allege facts indicating how such

a litigation tactic could constitute a violation of plaintiff’s

constitutional rights.

The report and recommendation specifically advises plaintiff

that the failure to object to the report and recommendation within

fourteen days of the report results in a “waiver of the right to

have the district judge review the Report and Recommendation de

novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the

decision of the District Court adopting the Report and

Recommendation.” The time period for filing objections to the

report and recommendation has expired. Plaintiff did not file

2
objections to the report and recommendation. Plaintiff did file a

motion for leave to file an amended complaint. However, in that

filing, he made no objections to the recommendations of the

magistrate judge, and he provided no information as to how an

amended complaint would cure the deficiencies in his present

complaint.

The court agrees with the conclusions of the magistrate judge,

and hereby adopts the report and recommendation (Doc. 7). The

motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 2), the amended motion

for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 3), the ex parte motion to

expedite the case (Doc. 5) and the motion for leave to file an

amended complaint (Doc. 8) are denied. Plaintiff’s complaint is

hereby dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for

failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted. The

clerk shall enter a judgment dismissing this case.

Date: October 2, 2018 s/James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

3