UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

LAJUAN FLEETWOOD,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HAMILTON COUNTY COURT OF 

DOMESTIC RELATIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 Case No. 1:18-cv-574

 Judge Timothy S. Black

 Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

DECISION AND ENTRY 

ADOPTING THE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 4) AND

TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT 

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United 

States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate 

Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on August 20, 2018, submitted a 

Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 4). Plaintiff filed timely objections on August 31, 

2018. (Doc. 5).

After reviewing the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s objections, and the 

case record, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are not well-taken. The Magistrate 

Judge found that Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed because (1) Ohio courts are 

not sui juris, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the Hamilton County Court of Domestic 

Relations fail (Doc. 4 at 5); and (2) as judges have absolute immunity from suit for acts 

they commit while functioning within their judicial capacity, Plaintiff’s claims against 

Judge Searcy fail. (Id. at 6). 
2

Plaintiff’s objections do not address the fact that Hamilton County Court of 

Domestic Relations is not sui juris. 

Plaintiff’s objections do argue that Judge Searcy is not immune from suit because 

her acts were not committed in a judicial capacity. (Doc. 5 at 5-6). However, this 

argument lacks merit. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s finding that “the 

decisions made by Judge Searcy in connection with plaintiff’s pending state court action 

are functions normally performed by judges.” (Doc. 4 at 6). See Alexander v. Rosen, 804 

F.3d 1203, 1208 (6th Cir. 2015) (granting absolute immunity to state family court judge 

and finding judge’s actions in assessing fees, issuing an arrest warrant, and refusing to 

issue a stay are paradigmatically judicial acts). 

Accordingly, the Court agrees with the Report and Recommendation’s finding that 

Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted and because it seeks relief from a defendant who is immune from suit.

 As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has 

reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo 

all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does 

determine that Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 5) should be and are hereby OVERRULED

and the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4) should be and is hereby ADOPTED in its 

entirety. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above:

1) Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 3) is DISMISSED with prejudice.
3

2) The Court certifies that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), an appeal of this Order 

would not be taken in good faith and therefore Plaintiff is denied leave to appeal in 

forma pauperis. Plaintiff remains free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in 

the Court of Appeals; and

3) The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is 

TERMINATED from the docket of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge

11/20/18