UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Daniel L. Hellmuth,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:18-cv-00340

v. Judge Michael R. Barrett

Leanne Hood, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s November 27, 2018 

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) and Order which recommended that Defendants’

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 16) be granted and ordered that Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Dismiss Defendants’ Answers (Doc. 11) be denied; Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Estoppel, By Representation, Judicial, Collateral, Equitable (Doc. 15) be denied as moot; 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow the Plaintiff to Use the ECF System (Doc. 3) be denied as moot; 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Rule on Rule 52 (Doc. 23) be denied as moot; and Plaintiff’s Amended 

Lay/Fact Witness Report and Suppression Request (Doc. 28) be denied as moot. (Doc. 

29).

Proper notice was given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including 

notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the 

R&R in a timely manner. (Id.); see United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 

Objections were due by December 11, 2018. On December 14, 2018, Plaintiff a 

document titled “Corrections to Defendant’s Report and Recommendation Filing” (Doc. 

30) and, on January 7, 2019, he filed a document titled “Objections to the Report and 
2

Recommendation” (Doc. 33). A review of these documents reveals that Plaintiff’s filing 

titled “Corrections to Defendant’s Report and Recommendation Filing” (Doc. 30) contains 

no objections to the R&R, whereas his filing titled “Objections to the Report and 

Recommendation” (Doc. 33) does contain objections to the R&R. Defendants filed 

responses to both filings. (Docs. 31, 35). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and, although he 

did not file any document within the 14-day deadline provided in the R&R, the Court will 

interpret his filing titled “Objections to the Report and Recommendation” (Doc. 33) as 

objections and as including a motion for an extension of time to file those objections and 

grant an extension. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).

With respect to dispositive matters, and when the Court receives timely objections 

to an R&R, 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 may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further 

evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id. The 

Magistrate Judge completed a comprehensive review of the record and the same will not 

be repeated here except to the extent necessary to address Plaintiff’s objections or 

Defendants’ response thereto. 

The Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the 

Pleadings (Doc. 16) be granted and explained that in Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1), and 

the supplemental memoranda (Docs. 4, 5, 6, 7) that she permitted him to file, he asserts

claims for breach of contract, adverse possession, and wrongful death (Doc. 29 at PageID 

149, 151-52). She found that, although his Complaint establishes a basis for diversity 

jurisdiction, his breach of contract and adverse possession claims are barred by the 
3

doctrine of claim preclusion, or res judicata, and he fails to state a plausible wrongful 

death claim. (Id. at PageID 154-58). 

Plaintiff initially objects1 to the Magistrate Judge’s summary of the facts found in 

the Complaint, namely that she stated that Plaintiff agreed to sell the property to 

Defendants, that Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Leanne Hood took the deed to her coworker who was a notary to get her notary stamp and signature, and that he only included 

his requested damages amount in a supplemental memorandum. (Doc. 33 at PageID 

190-91). However, aside from listing his disagreement with how the Magistrate Judge 

summarized the facts, he offers no argument or analysis as to how the Magistrate Judge’s 

alleged mischaracterizations resulted in an incorrect recommendation. The Court is not 

persuaded by his objections regarding the Magistrate Judge’s summary of the facts.

Plaintiff’s next objections relate to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that his claims for 

breach of contract and adverse possession are barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion, 

or res judicata, as “a state court fully adjudicated the property ownership dispute which 

forms the basis for [his] claims of breach of contract and adverse possession, and the 

alleged injuries resulting therefrom.” (Doc. 29 at PageID 154-56). He appears to confuse 

his asserted breach of contract and adverse possession claims with his asserted wrongful 

death claim, as he argues that he has not litigated his wife’s wrongful death in any other 

state or federal cases. (Doc. 33 at PageID 191). However, the Magistrate Judge did not 

find that he had; rather, she found that, to the extent he currently attempts to bring claims 

for breach of contract and adverse possession, see (Doc. 7), he is precluded from doing 

 1 The Court notes that the Magistrate Judge ordered that a number of Plaintiff’s non-dispositive motions 

(Docs. 3, 11, 15, 23, 28) be denied (Doc. 29) and Plaintiff does not object to that order (Doc. 33). After 

consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order denying Plaintiff’s non-dispositive motions, the Court 

concludes that the order (Doc. 29) is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a).
4

so. He also appears to argue that the Magistrate Judge’s reliance on claim preclusion, 

or res judicata, is misplaced in light of a pending appeal in front of the Ohio 12th District 

Court of Appeals. (Doc. 33 at PageID 193). The Court disagrees with Plaintiff and agrees 

with the Magistrate Judge that, regarding his claims for breach of contract and adverse 

possession, “[t]his federal action relates to the same civil property ownership dispute 

involving the Ohio home and deed as in the state court litigation and involves the same 

parties and claims that either were litigated in state court or could have been litigated in 

state court.” (Doc. 29 at PageID 156).

Plaintiff also objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Plaintiff fails to state a 

plausible wrongful death claim under Ohio law, as he has not shown that Defendants’ 

actions proximately caused his wife’s death. (Doc. 29 at PageID 156-58). He reiterates 

the pertinent Ohio law and states that he meets all of the required elements. (Doc. 33 at 

PageID 194-95). Notably, however, he does not explain how Defendants’ actions 

proximately caused his wife’s death. Rather, he reiterates the same asserted link 

between the property ownership dispute with Defendants and his wife’s heart attack and 

death that he asserted in his Complaint and which the Magistrate Judge found to be 

insufficient. Compare (Docs. 1, 33), with (Doc. 29). The Court agrees with the Magistrate 

Judge that Plaintiff’s attempt to link the allegedly fraudulent May 2016 property transfer 

and his wife’s March 2017 death, under his belief that “Defendants illegally [] transferred 

the deed of the house into their names and then proceeded to harass and pressure [his 

wife] into a fatal heart attack” (Doc. 33 at PageID 195), is “speculative, unforeseeable, 

and implausible” under the pleading standards required by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 8 (Doc. 29 at PageID 157).
5

Additionally, to the extent that Plaintiff asserts that he has “presented documents . 

. . as sufficient facts to stand up in a court of law” such that dismissal is inappropriate 

(Doc. 33 at PageID 191), the Court finds his objection to be a bare disagreement with the 

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation which falls short of his obligation to make specific 

objections to an R&R. See Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 

509 (6th Cir. 1991); see also Aldrich v. Bock, 32 F.Supp .2d 743, 747 (E.D.Mich.2004)

(“An ‘objection’ that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate

[judge]'s suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is 

not an ‘objection’ as that term is used in this context.”).

In sum, after a de novo review of the filings in this matter, the Court agrees with 

the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the 

Pleadings be granted.

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 

33) and ADOPTS in full the Magistrate Judge’s November 27, 2018 R&R (Doc. 29). 

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 16) is GRANTED, 

this case is DISMISSED, and the matter shall be CLOSED and TERMINATED from the 

Court’s docket.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s Michael R. Barrett_________________

Michael R. Barrett, Judge

United States District Court