Bradley v. Eichhorn et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
CALVIN BRADLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
MATTHEW EICHHORN, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action 2:25-cv-959
Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
ORDER
Plaintiff, Calvin Bradley, an Ohio inmate proceeding without the assistance of counsel,
sues several officers of the Washington County Sheriff’s Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
violation of his Fourth Amendment rights arising from an August 5, 2024 traffic stop and
subsequent arrest. On February 11, 2026, the undersigned issued an Order and Report and
Recommendation that recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for failure
to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (ECF No. 7.) Instead of objecting to that Report and
Recommendation, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 11.) Because Plaintiff
had already amended his Complaint once as a matter of course under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(a)(1) (see ECF No. 4), Plaintiff needed either leave of Court or the written consent
of Defendants in order to amend his Complaint a second time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
Because Plaintiff obtained neither, his Second Amended Complaint was improperly filed.
In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court liberally construes Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint as a motion for leave to amend his Complaint under Rule 15(a)(2). The
Case: 2:25-cv-00959-SDM-CMV Doc #: 12 Filed: 06/23/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
early stage of the case, combined with the absence of any prejudice to Defendants, weighs in
favor of granting amendment.1 And because the Second Amended Complaint replaces and
supersedes Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, the portion of the February 11, 2026 Order and
Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 7) that recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint is VACATED.
Accordingly, this matter is now before the Court for the initial screen of Plaintiff’s
Second Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to identify cognizable claims and to
recommend dismissal of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, or any portion of it, which is
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see also McGore
v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997). Having performed the initial screen, the
undersigned concludes that Plaintiff MAY PROCEED on Counts I through IV as set forth in his
Second Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is responsible for effecting service of process over
Defendants in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) within 90 days of the date
of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura
CHELSEY M. VASCURA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1 Plaintiff is CAUTIONED, however, that any future amendments must comply with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Case: 2:25-cv-00959-SDM-CMV Doc #: 12 Filed: 06/23/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>