Baccus v. City of Columbus Division of Fire

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
CHRISTIAN BACCUS,
Plaintiff,
Case Number 2:25-cv-724
v. 	JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
CITY OF COLUMBUS DIVISION
OF FIRE,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Order and Report and Recommendation issued by
the Magistrate Judge on December 15, 2025. (ECF No. 28.) The Undersigned referred Defendant
City of Columbus Division of Fire’s partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 16) to United States Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson for report and
recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (ECF No. 27.) After reviewing the Parties’
briefing, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be granted.
(ECF No. 28.)
As the Magistrate Judge explained, Plaintiff Christian Baccus, who is proceeding pro se,
does not state with specificity the claims he asserts against Defendant City of Columbus Division
of Fire, but his Amended Complaint can be read generously as raising discrimination claims
under Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (29 U.S.C.
§ 621, et seq.), and, potentially, a state law defamation claim. (ECF No. 12; ECF No. 28, PageID
133.)
In October 2025, Defendant filed the instant partial Motion to Dismiss, arguing that any
state law defamation claim asserted by Mr. Baccus is barred by the statute of limitations. (ECF
Case: 2:25-cv-00724-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 33 Filed: 01/21/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
No. 16.) Mr. Baccus responded (ECF No. 19, PageID 109) and Defendant replied (ECF No. 20).
After the § 636(b) referral, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order and Report and
Recommendation, recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s partial Motion to Dismiss.
(ECF No. 28.)
The Magistrate Judge explained that Mr. Baccus filed this action on June 30, 2025, so to
the extent his Amended Complaint raises state law defamation claims that arise out of statements
first spoken or published before June 30, 2024 (i.e., claims that accrued before June 30, 2024),
those claims are barred by Ohio’s one-year statute of limitations.1 (Id. PageID 136–38); see also
Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.11. The Magistrate Judge noted that Mr. Baccus may assert defamation
claims only for statements spoken or published on or after June 30, 2024—within one year of
when he initiated this action. (ECF No. 28, PageID 138.) Considering, however, that Mr. Baccus
alleged that he resigned from his position as a firefighter with the City of Columbus, Division of
Fire on March 14, 2024, more than a year before bringing this lawsuit, the Magistrate Judge
recommended dismissal of Mr. Baccus’s defamation claims on statute of limitations grounds.
(Id. PageID 137–38.)
Once a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation, the relevant statute
provides:
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file
written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by
rules of court. A judge of 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.
1 The Magistrate Judge acknowledged that defamation claims are subject to the discovery rule in
Ohio, which adjusts the statute of limitations accrual date when publication is secretive,
concealed, or otherwise unknowable to the plaintiff, but concluded that Mr. Baccus’s allegations
do not support applying the discovery rule to this case. (ECF No. 28, PageID 136–38.)
Case: 2:25-cv-00724-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 33 Filed: 01/21/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation waives a de novo determination by the district court of any issues addressed in
the report and recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813, 814–15 (6th Cir. 1984), aff’d,
474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981).
Mr. Baccus was advised of his right to object to the Order and Report and
Recommendation and of the consequences of failing to do so. (ECF No. 28, PageID 139.) Mr.
Baccus did not object to the Order and Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS (ECF No. 28) the Magistrate Judge’s
Order and Report and Recommendation and GRANTS (ECF No. 16) Defendant’s partial Motion
to Dismiss for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. The Clerk is DIRECTED
to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff Christian Baccus at 380 Canford Place, Gahanna, OH
43230. This case remains open.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
1/21/2026 	s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
DATE 	EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 2:25-cv-00724-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 33 Filed: 01/21/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>