govinfo:USCOURTS-ohsd-2_25-cv-00068-3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 
EASTERN DIVISION 
  : 
Tyrice Hill : 
 :     Case No. 2:25-cv-00068 
 Plaintiff, : 
          v.  :     Judge Graham 
  : 
Annette Chambers-Smith, :     Magistrate Judge Litkovitz 
 :      
 Defendant. : 
 
 
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
  
 
 This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendations (“R&R”) of United 
States Magistrate Judge Litkovitz (doc. 4) , regarding an initial screening  of the Plaintiff’s 
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), and Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R. For the 
reasons that follow, the Court ADOPTS said Report and Recommendations. 
STANDARD OF REVIEW 
Section 636 of Title 28 of the United States Code sets forth the jurisdiction and powers of 
magistrate judges, and, in so doing,  “essentially creates two different standards by which district 
courts review a magistrate judge's finding. ” Monroe v. Houk , No. 2:07 -CV-258, 2016 WL 
1252945, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 23, 2016). As to dispositive motions—e.g., a motion to dismiss or 
a motion for summary judgment —or an initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A , a 
magistrate judge may be designated to make a report and recommendation to the district court for 
the disposition of the motion. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (B). When a prisoner seeks redress from a 
governmental entity, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss any portion of the complaint 
which is determined to be “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 
granted; or… see ks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.”  28 
Case: 2:25-cv-00068-JLG-KLL Doc #: 6 Filed: 06/09/26 Page: 1 of 4  PAGEID #: <pageID>
U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West). 
When a party raises timely objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, 
the court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed 
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (C). When no 
objections are timely filed, a district court reviews a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 
for clear error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, advisory committee note (“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.”). 
As to non-dispositive motions, magistrate judges may be designated to hear and determine 
“any pretrial matter pending before the court.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (A). When reviewing such 
determinations by the magistrate judge, the district court may reconsider the determination “where 
it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id. 
DISCUSSION 
 As noted in the R&R, “this is not the first complaint filed by plaintiff against defendant 
Annette Chambers-Smith alleging that he was denied access to the courts.” Doc. 4, # 136 (citing 
Hill v. Chambers-Smith, Case No. 2:22-cv-3742 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 30, 2023). Against that backdrop, 
the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s single -count Complaint, because (1) 
the allegations with respect to Plaintiff’s state court proceedings in CR-04-2741 are duplicative of 
claims raised in Case No. 2:22 -cv-3742; (2) to the exte nt Plaintiff alleges “ongoing violations 
related to legal resources at ODRC or denial of access to the courts… these claims should also be 
dismissed as duplicative of the claims pending in Case No. 2:22 -cv-3742”; and (3) because “it is 
clear from the face of the complaint that plaintiff’s claims for alleged access-to-courts violations… 
are time-barred.” Doc. 4, # 137-38. The Court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge 
and finds Plaintiff’s objections unpersuasive. 
Case: 2:25-cv-00068-JLG-KLL Doc #: 6 Filed: 06/09/26 Page: 2 of 4  PAGEID #: <pageID>
 
 
 First, Plaintiff states that he “did not seek to duplicate allegations raised in Case No. 2:22-
cv-3742,” but rather “sought to make the Court aware of ongoing violations related to the legal 
resources at ODRC.” Doc 5, # 142. In other words, he appears to concede the first two grounds for 
dismissal, but disagrees that the allegations of “ongoing violations” are duplicative and subject to 
dismissal. In his Complaint, Plaintiff relates that after he was sentenced on February 3, 2005, he 
was “transferred back into the custody of ODRC where the denial of meaningful access to the 
court was the same as in Plaintiff’s last  two convictions, in which Plaintiff has a 1983 complaint 
pending before this court… in case number 2:22-cv-3742.” Doc. 1-1, # 18-19. Thus, the Complaint 
is clear that these allegations are duplicative. 
 Even if some of the allegations are not duplicative, they are clearly time -barred. The 
Complaint describes the relevant events occurring in 2004 and 2005. Plaintiff’s injury, as he 
describes it, is that ODRC enforces “unconstitutional policies… that denied Plaintiff meaningful 
access to the courts because it required him to seek assistance from untrained and inadequately 
supervised legal clerks. ” Doc. 5, # 144.  These allegedly unconstitutional policies caused him to 
miss filing deadlines related to decades-old criminal cases. Id. at # 144-45. In Ohio, the statute of 
limitations for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim is 2 years. See Browning v. Pendleton, 869 F.2d 989, 990 
(6th Cir. 1989) . Nevertheless, Plaintiff contends that the discovery rule should allow his suit to 
proceed long after the end of the limitations period, because he was unaware of the injury until 
September 2024, when “an inmate clerk trained in the law [helped] him know of the injury.” Doc. 
5, # 145-46.  
 Plaintiff cites Sevier v. Turner, 742 F.2d 262 (6th Cir. 1984) for support of his limitations 
argument, but it is of no help to him. In Sevier, the Sixth Circuit explained that “The statute of 
limitations commences to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which 
is the basis of his action … A plaintiff has reason to know of his injury when he should have 
Case: 2:25-cv-00068-JLG-KLL Doc #: 6 Filed: 06/09/26 Page: 3 of 4  PAGEID #: <pageID>
discovered it through the exercise of reasonable diligence. ” 742 F.2d at 273. Here, Plaintiff has 
not shown that he could not discover the injury through due diligence. Rather, like the claimant in 
Sevier, Plaintiff “simply appears to have been ignorant of [his] legal rights.” Id. This does not 
describe a circumstance which warrants extension of the limitations period.  
 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Complaint (doc. 1-1) be DISMISSED with 
prejudice. Plaintiff is DENIED any requested certificate of appealability, and the Court hereby 
certifies to the United States Court of Appeals that an appeal would be objectively frivolous and 
therefore should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
s/ James L. Graham    
        JAMES L. GRAHAM   
        United States District Judge 
DATE: June 9, 2026 
 
Case: 2:25-cv-00068-JLG-KLL Doc #: 6 Filed: 06/09/26 Page: 4 of 4  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight