Villavicencio v. City of Columbus et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JOSE VILLAVICENCIO,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF COLUMBUS, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
Case No. 2:25-cv-134
Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A.
Preston Deavers
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the June 23, 2025 Report and
Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge. (R&R, ECF No. 9.) After
performing an initial screen of the Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2), the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff
Jose Villavicencio’s federal claims (Counts I, III–V) for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
his remaining state law claim (Count II). (Id.) Mr. Villavicencio timely filed an
objection to the Report and Recommendation. (Obj., ECF No. 10.) For the reasons
below, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Report and Recommendation (ECF
No. 9) and DISMISSES the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5).
I. BACKGROUND
Mr. Villavicencio is an Ohio resident proceeding without assistance of
counsel. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 8.) He filed this suit against the City of Columbus,
the City’s Code Enforcement Department, and Columbus Zone Attorney
Case: 2:25-cv-00134-SDM-EPD Doc #: 12 Filed: 12/11/25 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Christopher Clark. (Id.) Mr. Villavicencio alleges that the City’s code enforcement
actions (culminating in an emergency receivership over a property of his) violated
his constitutional rights, federal civil rights laws, and state law. (Id.)
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
If a party objects within the allotted time to a 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); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court “may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made
by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
III. ANALYSIS
The Magistrate Judge performed an initial screen of Mr. Villavicencio’s
Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (R&R.) Upon review, the
Magistrate Judge recommended: that his claims against the City’s Code
Enforcement Department be dismissed because the Department lacks the capacity
to be sued; that his claims against Attorney Clark be dismissed because Attorney
Clark is entitled to prosecutorial immunity; that his due process and Monell claims
be dismissed for failure to allege a deprivation of property or a fundamental right;
and that his discrimination claim be dismissed for failure to allege facts giving rise
to the plausible inference that intentional discrimination occurred. (Id.) The
Magistrate Judge further recommended that Mr. Villavicencio’s “claim” for
injunctive relief fail because his substantive claims are unavailing, and that the
Case: 2:25-cv-00134-SDM-EPD Doc #: 12 Filed: 12/11/25 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claim. (Id.)
Mr. Villavicencio objects to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, largely on the grounds that the City failed to notify his tenants of
enforcement proceedings involving the property they occupied. (See, e.g., Obj.,
PAGEID # 102 (“The city actually did not notify the tenants[.]”), PAGEID # 103
(“[T]here was no effort on part of the city prosecutor to notify the tenants.”),
PAGEID # 105 (“Violation of the procedural due process has to do with tenant
notification.”).) But, as the Magistrate Judge pointed out, Mr. Villavicencio “lacks
standing to assert claims based on lack of notice to anyone other than himself.”
(R&R, PAGEID # 97 (citing Spokeo v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 339 (2016)).) In his
Objections, Mr. Villavicencio neither argues nor establishes that he has standing to
pursue claims arising from an alleged failure to notify his tenants.
The balance of Mr. Villavicencio’s Objections reflect mere disagreement with
the Report and Recommendation, either arguing that the Magistrate Judge
misinterpreted the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint (see, e.g., Obj.,
PAGEID # 102 (referencing the Magistrate Judge’s purported “confusion”)) or
because Mr. Villavicencio’s conclusions about the facts alleged differ from the
Magistrate Judge’s (see, e.g., id., PAGEID # 104 (disputing that Attorney Clark is
entitled to prosecutorial immunity for the conduct at issue)). As to these remaining
objections, the Court finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions or
reasoning.
Case: 2:25-cv-00134-SDM-EPD Doc #: 12 Filed: 12/11/25 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
IV. CONCLUSION
Mr. Villavicencio’s Objection (ECF No. 10) is OVERRULED. The Court
ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 9). Mr. Villavicencio’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED. Count II is
DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling in state court.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Sarah D. Morrison
SARAH D. MORRISON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case: 2:25-cv-00134-SDM-EPD Doc #: 12 Filed: 12/11/25 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>