Guney v. Butler County Jail

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
METIN GUNEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BUTLER COUNTY JAIL,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:26-cv-286
Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7) issued
by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on May 11, 2026. No objections have been filed and
the time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired.
Having carefully reviewed the comprehensive findings and conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge and finding no clear error, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation in its entirety. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (advisory committee notes from 1983
amendment) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there
is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation”); see e.g.,
Roane v. Warden of Corr. Reception Ctr., No. 2:22-cv-2768, 2022 WL 16535903, at *1 (S.D. Ohio
Oct. 28, 2022). Accordingly, the Court (1) DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s
Fourteenth Amendment claim for unauthorized deprivation of property; (2) DISMISSES
WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim for excessive force; and
(3) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Investigate Cleveland Immigration Court (Doc. 6)
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Additionally, Plaintiff shall
Case: 1:26-cv-00286-JPH-GMR Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/13/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
be permitted to file a second amended complaint within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of
this Order. Any second amended complaint should name as a defendant any person plaintiff
contends is actually and personally responsible for the alleged violation of his rights. See
Pineda v. Hamilton Cty., Ohio, 977 F.3d 483, 490 (6th Cir. 2020) (“[A] § 1983 plaintiff generally
must prove both that a defendant was personally at fault and that the defendant’s culpable
conduct (not somebody else’s) caused the injury.”). Further, any second amended complaint
must set forth in clear, short and concise terms, the specific claims for relief attributable to
each defendant, and the factual allegations supporting each such claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
As required by S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 5.1, the second amended complaint should be legible and
double-spaced.
For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation and pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3), the Court certifies that an appeal of this Order would lack an arguable basis in
law or in fact and thus would not be taken in good faith. The Court accordingly DENIES
Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. In accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5),
Plaintiff remains free to file a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis in the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 13, 2026
Jeffery P. Hopkins
United States District Judge
Case: 1:26-cv-00286-JPH-GMR Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/13/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>