Warrenhuffman v. Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
David Warrenhuffman,
Plaintiff,
v.
Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional
Facility,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:25-cv-721
Judge Susan J. Dlott
Order Adopting Report and
Recommendation and Dismissing with
Prejudice the Complaint
Plaintiff David Warrenhuffman, an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
(“SOCF”), has filed a difficult-to-decipher Complaint against the Warden of SOCF and Dave
Yost, the Attorney General of Ohio. (Doc. 9.) Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers issued a
Report and Recommendations on November 17, 2025 recommending that the Court dismiss the
Complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
(Doc. 10.) For the reasons that follow, the Court will adopt her recommendation.
I.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(1) authorizes magistrate judges to make
recommendations concerning dispositive pretrial matters that have been referred to them. A
district court is not required to independently review a report and recommendation to which no
objection is made. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985). Nonetheless, some district
courts follow the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 72(b) and review the report and
recommendation for clear error. 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); Lassiter v. Dullaghan, No. 1:10-
CV-010, 2011 WL 110259, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 13, 2011).
Case: 1:25-cv-00721-SJD-EPD Doc #: 11 Filed: 01/05/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
II.
Warrenhuffman is proceeding pro se—without the representation of counsel—and in
forma pauperis—without the payment of filing fees. (Docs. 7, 9.) District courts must dismiss
an in forma pauperis complaint if the action is frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii); see also Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31–32 (1992). District court must sua sponte review prisoner
complaints seeking redress from a government entity or officer under the same standards. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. A complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff must be “liberally construed” and “held
to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). By the
same token, however, the complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d
468, 470–471 (6th Cir. 2010) (stating that the “dismissal standard articulated in Iqbal and
Twombly governs dismissals for failure to state a claim” under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)).
III.
In the Complaint, Warrenhuffman cites to Ohio Administrative Code chapter 1301:6–3,
which provides rules related to the Ohio Securities Act, and appears to seek to recover proceeds
of an unspecified account or securities. (Doc. 9 at PageID 119–120.) The Magistrate Judge
reviewed the Complaint sua sponte pursuant to §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A, and she concluded
that the allegations “are insufficient to state a claim with an arguable basis in law over which this
federal Court has subject matter jurisdiction.” (Doc. 10 at PageID 159.) Warrenhuffman did not
file objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Court finds no clear error and agrees
Case: 1:25-cv-00721-SJD-EPD Doc #: 11 Filed: 01/05/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss the case with prejudice.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10) is ADOPTED and the
Complaint (Doc. 9) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
S/Susan J. Dlott
Susan J. Dlott
United States District Judge
Case: 1:25-cv-00721-SJD-EPD Doc #: 11 Filed: 01/05/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>