Franklin v. Dollar Tree et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
QUEEN CHARLOTTE FRANKLIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DOLLAR TREE, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:25-cv-87
Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5) issued
by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on March 10, 2025. The Magistrate Judge
recommends that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff has filed a
document purporting to be objections (Doc. 6).
A district judge must review de novo any objections to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Importantly, however, review applies only to “any
portion to which a proper objection was made.” Richards v. Colvin, No. 2:12-cv-748, 2013 WL
5487045, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2013). This means that general or unspecific objections
are treated the same as a failure to object. Slater v. Potter, 28 F. App’x 512, 513 (6th Cir. 2002)
(“The filing of vague, general, or conclusory objections does not meet the requirement of
specific objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to object.”); see also Howard v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). Here, the Court cannot discern any
specific objections from Plaintiff’s filing. Plaintiff has therefore forfeited de novo review. Miller
Case: 1:25-cv-00087-JPH-KLL Doc #: 11 Filed: 10/08/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995) (“The objections must be clear enough to enable
the district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.”).
With this in mind, 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 DISMISSES Plaintiff’s
Complaint as frivolous and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff is WARNED that she is highly likely to be deemed vexatious and
made subject to prefiling limitations if she persists in filing additional cases that lack any
reasonable basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction and/or that are factually and legally
frivolous under screening standards.
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 8, 2026
Jeffery P. Hopkins
United States District Judge
Case: 1:25-cv-00087-JPH-KLL Doc #: 11 Filed: 10/08/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>