Orr v. The Eighth District Court of Appeals

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
STATE ex rel. DARLLEL ORR,
Plaintiff,
v.
EIGHTH DISTRICT COURT OF
APPEALS,
Defendant.
Civil Action 1:25-cv-803
Judge Susan J. Dlott
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct the Record. (ECF No. 4.)
Plaintiff explains that he intended to file this action in the Ohio Supreme Court but mistakenly
filed here due to issues with the filing system at the state facility where he is incarcerated. He
asks this Court to transfer this case to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. Federal courts cannot transfer cases to state courts. In
addition, because Plaintiff’s action was filed in the wrong court system, it is RECOMMENDED
that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice so that Plaintiff may refile in the appropriate
state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura
CHELSEY M. VASCURA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:25-cv-00803-SJD-CMV Doc #: 5 Filed: 11/24/25 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen
(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those
specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with
supporting authority for the objection(s). A District Judge of this Court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a District Judge of this Court may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive
further evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report
and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of
the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Case: 1:25-cv-00803-SJD-CMV Doc #: 5 Filed: 11/24/25 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>