Young v. City of Logan et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
HAROLD D. YOUNG,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF LOGAN, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:25-cv-698
JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE
Magistrate Judge Shimeall
ORDER AND OPINION
On February 6, 2026, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s previous
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19), dismissing all of Plaintiff Harold Young’s
claims except his Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure claim against Defendant
Officer Kyle Arnett in his individual capacity. (Op. & Order, Doc. 27, #175). But
because that dismissal rested on pleading defects, the Court dismissed without
prejudice, and granted Young thirty-one days in which to seek leave to file an
amended complaint if he wished to do so. (Id. at #175–76). Young now seeks that
leave. (See Mot. for Leave to File Am. Compl., Doc. 30). Defendants responded, (see
Resp., Doc. 31), and Young filed a memorandum in reply, (see Doc. 33). Magistrate
Judge Shimeall has reviewed the briefing and issued a new Report and
Recommendation (R&R, Doc. 34), recommending the Court deny the motion for leave
to file because Young’s proposed amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, (id. at #230). Young did not object to that R&R, and the time to
do so has since passed. For the reasons discussed briefly below, and especially in light
of Young’s failure to object, the Court agrees with and ADOPTS the recommendation
Case: 2:25-cv-00698-DRC-SCS Doc #: 35 Filed: 05/29/26 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
(Doc. 34) and so DENIES Young’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint
(Doc. 30) as futile.
BACKGROUND
To briefly recount the facts of this case, Young alleges that Officer Arnett
unlawfully took Young’s checks and gave them to a non-party to this lawsuit. (Compl.,
Doc. 18, #99–100). Based on that, Young brought several claims against both Officer
Arnett and the City of Logan, the officer’s employer. (Id. at #100–01). But Young
failed to sufficiently plead most of those claims, so the Court dismissed them all
except the Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure claim against Officer Arnett in
his individual capacity. (Doc. 27, #175).
Now, Young seeks to amend his Complaint to cure the deficiencies the Court
identified in his claim under Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New
York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), against the City of Logan and his procedural due process
claim against both Defendants. (See Doc. 30). But because Young is proceeding in
forma pauperis, the Magistrate Judge screened the proposed amended complaint
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and issued an R&R. (Doc. 34, #230). There he
recommends denying leave to amend. (Id.). That is because the Magistrate Judge
concluded that Young, once again, fails to allege the facts necessary to plausibly state
his claims. (Id.). Indeed, the Magistrate Judge found that the proposed amended
complaint—even considered in light of the additional facts raised in Young’s reply
brief—fails to sufficiently allege the required elements of a Monell or a procedural
due process claim. (Id. at #234).
Case: 2:25-cv-00698-DRC-SCS Doc #: 35 Filed: 05/29/26 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
Regarding the former, the Magistrate Judge found that while the new version
of Young’s complaint at least narrows his claim to an alleged failure to train and
supervise by the City, “it just recites the elements of Monell, and the basic facts of
what allegedly happened to him.” (Id. at #235–36). And even if one credits the
additional facts Young included in his Reply (although typically only allegations in
the proposed amended complaint itself count), the Magistrate Judge found that
Young at most alleges “one instance of one officer not following a procedure.” (Id. at
#236). And the problem is that “one officer’s failure to comply with a statute or rule
is generally insufficient to show that the City was deliberately indifferent to a need
to train officers.” (Id. (citing Harvey v. Campbell Cnty., Tenn., 453 F. App’x 557, 567
(6th Cir. 2011))). So the R&R recommends dismissal of that claim. (Id. at #237).
As for Young’s other attempted claim, which asserts a procedural due process
violation, the Magistrate Judge found that Young likewise fails to plead a viable
claim. (Id.). That is because “to state a due process claim for the deprivation of
property that resulted from a state employee’s ‘random and unauthorized act,’ the
plaintiff must allege facts showing that he lacked an adequate post-deprivation
remedy to rectify the wrong.” (Id. at #238 (quoting Geer v. Ginocchio, No. 1:17-cv-214,
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86942, at *9 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 19, 2017) (R&R), adopted by 2017
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85784 (S.D. Ohio June 5, 2017))). Even assuming Young had a
property interest in the checks Officer Arnett allegedly took, the Magistrate Judge
found that Young failed to plead facts suggesting that state remedies were
unavailable. (Id.). And regardless, the Magistrate Judge found that, as a matter of
Case: 2:25-cv-00698-DRC-SCS Doc #: 35 Filed: 05/29/26 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
law, Ohio has adequate post-deprivation process for the recovery of seized personal
property. (Id.).
Accordingly, the R&R recommends denying Young’s Motion for Leave to File
Amended Complaint (Doc. 30). (Doc. 34, #239). The R&R also advised Young that he
had 14 days to file specific written objections, noting that failing to do so may forfeit
rights on appeal. (Id. at #239–40 (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985))); see also
Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (noting the “fail[ure] to file an[y]
objection[s] to the magistrate judge’s R&R … [constitutes a] forfeiture” of such
objections (emphasis omitted)); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). That meant Young needed
to object by May 14, 2026. He did not do so.
LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), “district courts review a[]
[report and recommendation] de novo after a party files a timely objection.” Bates v.
Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., No. 1:22-cv-337, 2023 WL 4348835, at *1 (S.D. Ohio
July 5, 2023). But that de novo review requirement extends only to “any portion to
which a proper objection was made.” Id. (citation omitted). For unobjected portions of
an R&R, by contrast, the plaintiff has forfeited his right to such review. Berkshire,
928 F.3d at 530. Still, “the advisory committee notes to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(b) suggest that the Court [] must ‘satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’” Redmon v.
Noel, No. 1:21-cv-445, 2021 WL 4771259, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 13, 2021) (collecting
cases).
Case: 2:25-cv-00698-DRC-SCS Doc #: 35 Filed: 05/29/26 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
Here, Young has not objected to the R&R. And, having reviewed the R&R, the
Court finds no clear error. The Court agrees that Young’s proposed amendment is
futile as to both the Monell and procedural due process claims. While Young names
various Monell theories, just as before, he still fails to point to any facts, other than
the single instance of what allegedly happened to him, in support of any failure to
train or supervise claim. (See Proposed Am. Compl., Doc. 30-1, #197–98). That is not
enough. Simply alleging that “the City of Logan failed to adequately train and
supervise” its officers regarding “warrantless seizures of personal property,” with no
accompanying details, does not allow the Court to plausibly infer from one alleged act
that the City was deliberately indifferent to the need for training its officers. (Id.).
And while his reply brief claims (for the first time) that Officer Arnett’s failure to log
the checks into evidence violated the Logan Municipal Code, (Doc. 33, #223), the
Court finds no clear error in the R&R’s conclusion that “one officer’s failure to comply
with a statute or rule is generally insufficient to show that the City was deliberately
indifferent to a need to train officers,” (Doc. 34, #236 (citing Harvey, 453 F. App’x at
567)).
Nor does the Court find clear error in the R&R’s recommendation on the
procedural due process claim. The Magistrate Judge correctly stated that such a
claim requires that the plaintiff lack adequate post-deprivation remedies under state
law, (id. at #238), and the Magistrate Judge committed no clear error in finding those
remedies sufficiently available to Young here, (id. at #239); Geer, 2017 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 86942, at *10–11 (discussing Ohio remedies for the return of seized property).
Case: 2:25-cv-00698-DRC-SCS Doc #: 35 Filed: 05/29/26 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

6
In sum, the R&R did not clearly err in finding that Young fails to state a Monell
or due process claim. So the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety. That in turn means
that Young’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Doc. 30) fails on futility
grounds.
CONCLUSION
Finding no clear error, the Court adopts the R&R (Doc. 34) in its entirety.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Young’s Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint (Doc. 30) as futile.
SO ORDERED.
May 29, 2026
DATE DOUGLAS R. COLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 2:25-cv-00698-DRC-SCS Doc #: 35 Filed: 05/29/26 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>