govinfo:USCOURTS-ohsd-3_25-cv-00184-3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 
 
 
 
 
Jory Leedy,   
 
Plaintiff,             Case No. 3:25-cv-184 
v.              District Judge Thomas M. Rose   
        Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr. 
 
John McGuire, et al.,         
        
       
Defendants. 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 
ENTRY AND ORDER ADOPTI NG THE REPORT AND 
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DOC. 8),  
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND (DOC. 16) 
DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CLAI MS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND 
TERMINATING CASE.  
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by the 
Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 8.) The Magistrate Judge performed a review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 
1915(e)(2)(B) & § 1915A(b) and concluded that the Complaint should be dismissed without 
prejudice for failure to state a claim, since, in order to prevail, he would need to prove facts at 
odds with the facts underlying his conviction. (Doc. 8, PageID 52.) Plaintiff objected (Doc. 
15) and moved to amend his complaint. (Doc. 16).  
The proposed amendment seeks to amend his request for relief from one seeking 
damages and “all other relief that is proper,” ((Doc. 1, PageID 15), to one seeking damages 
and:  
Case: 3:25-cv-00184-TMR-PBS Doc #: 17 Filed: 06/04/26 Page: 1 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>
 
 
2 
For all other relief that is proper, NOT TO INCLUDE invalidation 
of Plaintiff's criminal conviction in matters explicitly de-linked from 
the allegations within the claims of this Complaint by the habeas 
court. 
 
(Doc. 16, PageID 72.) 
The Court has reviewed the findings of the Magistrate Judge. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 
636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), this Court has made a de novo review of the record in this 
case. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS the Report and 
Recommendation (Doc. 8) in its entirety.  
Despite Plaintiff’s proposed disclaimer (Doc. 16, PageID 72), as the Magistrate Judge 
explained, Plaintiff cannot prevail on his claims without challenging the evidence produced 
against him at trial. (Doc. 8, PageID 52.) Thus, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint 
(Doc. 16) is DENIED.  
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of this Order 
would not be taken in good faith. The captioned cause is hereby ordered TERMINATED 
upon the docket records of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, 
Western Division, at Dayton. 
DONE and ORDERED this Thursday, June 04, 2026.       
  
        
    s/THOMAS M. ROSE  
__________________________________    
     
THOMAS M. ROSE 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
 
Case: 3:25-cv-00184-TMR-PBS Doc #: 17 Filed: 06/04/26 Page: 2 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight