Beverly v. Clinton County Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
DERRICK L. BEVERLY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CLINTON COUNTY CHILD
SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:25-cv-404
Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Derrick Beverly (“Plaintiff” or “Beverly”) initiated this pro se action in the
Clinton County Court of Common Pleas. Defendant Clinton County Child Support
Enforcement Agency (“CSEA”) (“Defendant” or “Clinton County CSEA”) subsequently
removed the case to this federal court. Beverly then promptly filed a Motion to Remand to
State Court (Doc. 3) (“Remand Motion”) on the basis that this Court lacked jurisdiction. In
an interesting turn of events, after Defendant opposed Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff sought leave
to file an amended complaint, wherein he alleges that jurisdiction is proper. See Doc. 10.
On September 16, 2025, Chief Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman issued a
Report and Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to State
Court (Doc. 3) be granted. The Magistrate Judge did not reach Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave
to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 10). Plaintiff now objects to the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation that Plaintiff’s Remand Motion should be granted. Doc. 12, PageID 113–
14. Clinton County CSEA has filed no objections, nor any response to Plaintiff’s objections.
Case: 1:25-cv-00404-JPH-SKB Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/23/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED, and the Report
and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety.
I. 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)(C); 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).
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
Rather than address the Magistrate Judge’s comprehensive findings and conclusions,
Beverly’s objections are largely a guised attempt to litigate his Motion for Leave to File
Amended Complaint (Doc. 10). The Court declines to entertain Beverly’s request for leave to
amend his complaint because as the Magistrate Judge aptly concluded, statutory authority
“affords no discretion to a federal court to ignore its mandate that an improperly removed
case ‘shall be remanded.’” Doc. 11, PageID 110 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)).
To the extent that Beverly objects to the Magistrate Judge’s findings as to abstention,
Beverly’s objections must be overruled. Beverly contends that he is not asking the Court to
calculate, modify, or review child support orders, and thus abstention does not bar his claims.
Doc. 12, PageID 114. But based on the allegations in his complaint, it appears that Beverly is
seeking reimbursement of child support payments. Doc. 2, PageID 27–30. In fact, Beverly
admits that the “relief sought would necessarily require the Court to review or interfere with
the administration of a child support matter….” Doc. 3-1, PageID 36. All told, Beverly has
failed to persuade this Court that the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that federal court
Case: 1:25-cv-00404-JPH-SKB Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/23/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
subject matter jurisdiction is lacking based on the Burrus abstention doctrine and its progeny,
and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Finding no error, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections
(Doc. 12) are OVERRULED, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11) is ADOPTED,
and this case is REMANDED to the Clinton County Court of Common Pleas.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 23, 2026
Jeffery P. Hopkins
United States District Judge
Case: 1:25-cv-00404-JPH-SKB Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/23/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>