Mitchell v. KeyBank National Association et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
LOWANDA MITCHELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEYBANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:25-cv-310
JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE
Magistrate Judge Deavers
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s April 25, 2025, Report
and Recommendation (“R&R,” Doc. 6) advising the Court to dismiss Lowanda
Mitchell’s complaints (Docs. 4, 4-1, 5) against all Defendants, except for KeyBank
National Association. For the reasons briefly discussed below and given the lack of
any objections to the R&R, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Doc. 6), DISMISSES
WITH 	PREJUDICE 	Mitchell’s claims against the Judge Defendants and the
Franklin County Recorder’s Office, and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mitchell’s 	claims 	against 	the 	other 	Defendants, 	except 	for 	the 	claims 	against
KeyBank, which may proceed.
On March 26, 2025, Plaintiff Mitchell moved for leave to file her Complaint in
forma pauperis. (Doc. 1). Shortly after, the Magistrate Judge granted Mitchell’s
motion. (Doc. 3). Mitchell proceeded to file two complaints. She filed the first
Complaint on April 8, 2025, (Doc. 4), but then filed a second “Original Complaint” on
April 16, 2025, (Doc. 5). Along with these complaints, she also attached a document
Case: 2:25-cv-00310-DRC-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/03/25 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
to her first Complaint, titled “Complaint for Fraud, Unjust Enrichment, Fraud upon
the Court, and Monetary Damages.” (Doc. 4-1).
As the Magistrate Judge noted, these complaints raise a variety of claims:
“Breach of Contract, Fraud in the Factum, Breach of Fiduciary under Ohio Trust
Law, Violation of the Ohio Uniform Commercial Code, Violation of the Truth in
Lending Act, Violation of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, Violations of MERS
Procedures, Securities Fraud under the Ohio Securities Act, Violations of the Dodd-
Frank Act, Violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Violation of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair
Dealing, Violation of the Ohio Civil RICO Statute, … Pattern of Misconduct by
KeyBank, Fraudulent Misrepresentation in Borrower Covenant, Lack of Standing
and Wrongful Foreclosure, and Restitution.” (Doc. 6, #166). But all of these claims
appear to arise out of Mitchell’s concerns about the way in which KeyBank allegedly
transferred Mitchell’s mortgage from one KeyBank entity (“KeyBank National
Association”) to another KeyBank entity (“Key Bank National Home Loan Trust
2002-6”). (Doc. 4, #115). According to Mitchell, the transfer “stripp[ed] Plaintiff of her
rights under the mortgage agreement.” (Id.). Ultimately, it appears that it also led to
“foreclosure proceedings” that resulted in Mitchell being “forcibly removed from her
home based on misrepresentations to the court and fraudulent documents.” (Doc. 5,
#150). And Mitchell appears to believe that the various non-KeyBank defendants,
including two attorneys (Jessica M. Johnson and Tamara Gurchik (the attorney
Defendants)), and two judges (Judges Colleen O’Donnell & Andria Noble (the Judge
Case: 2:25-cv-00310-DRC-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/03/25 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
Defendants)) among others, all wrongfully participated in that foreclosure action.
(See generally Doc. 4-1).
The Magistrate Judge screened Mitchell’s Complaints. Based on that, she
issued an R&R on April 25, 2025, advising the Court to dismiss Mitchell’s claims
against all Defendants except for KeyBank. (Doc. 6). The R&R concluded that
Mitchell’s fraud claims against the Judges and attorneys failed because they were
“wholly vague and conclusory,” and, as to the Judge Defendants, because of absolute
immunity. (Id. at #167–69). Further, the claims against the Franklin County
Recorder’s Office fail because it is “not a legal entity capable of being sued.” (Id. at
#169). Lastly, although Plaintiff names other Defendants in the caption, she does not
make any factual allegations against them. (Id. at #170). Therefore, the Magistrate
Judge recommends dismissal as to those Defendants, too. (Id.).
The R&R also specifically advised the parties that failing to object within the
14 days specified in the R&R may result in forfeiture of rights on appeal, which
includes the right to District Court review. (Id. at #171); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting § 636(b)(1)(C),
intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no
objections are filed.”); Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (noting
“fail[ure] to file an objection to the magistrate judge’s R&R ... is forfeiture”); 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). The time for filing objections has passed, and neither party has
objected.
Case: 2:25-cv-00310-DRC-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/03/25 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
Although neither party objected, the advisory committee notes to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 72(b) suggest that the Court still must “satisfy itself that there is
no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See
also Redmon v. Noel, No. 1:21-cv-445, 2021 WL 4771259, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 13,
2021) (collecting cases). Consistent with that admonition, the Court has reviewed the
R&R and determined that it does not contain “clear error on [its] face.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b) (advisory committee notes).
The Magistrate Judge begins by setting out the correct legal standards that
govern pleading requirements. (Doc. 6, #162–63). Most important here, a plaintiff’s
complaint must include a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While this does not mean “detailed
factual allegations,” the plaintiff cannot simply provide “labels and conclusions” or “a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). And
the Magistrate Judge correctly described the legal standard for absolute judicial
immunity. (Doc. 6, #168).
The R&R likewise did not clearly err in applying those standards to Mitchell’s
claims. (Doc. 6). First, as to Defendants Johnson and Gurchik (the attorneys),
Mitchell 	only 	states 	that 	they 	are 	“attorneys 	who 	knowingly 	participated 	in
fraudulent court proceedings,” that the “foreclosure proceedings continued under an
altered case number with different judges and attorneys,” and so “two different judges
and attorneys handled the same case without notice, violating Plaintiff’s rights.”
Case: 2:25-cv-00310-DRC-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/03/25 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
(Doc. 4-1, #142–43). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s
allegations “are wholly vague and conclusory,” and so fail to state a claim. (Doc. 6,
#168). The claims against the two Judge Defendants fail for the same reason. (Id.).
Additionally, those claims fail because judges enjoy absolute immunity, unless the
claim is for nonjudicial action or if the judge lacked jurisdiction. (Id. at #168 (citing
Harvey v. Franklin Cnty., Ohio, No. 2:22-cv-3886, 2023 WL 3688172, at *3 (S.D. Ohio
May 	25, 	2023))). 	The 	claims 	here 	relate 	to 	the 	two 	Franklin 	County 	judges’
determinations regarding the underlying foreclosure, a judicial action, and they had
jurisdiction over the Columbus property because it was located within Franklin
County. (Id. at #168–69; Doc. 4, #115 (listing property address)). So the judges are
protected by immunity. And that immunity means that they are entitled to the
dismissal of these claims against them with prejudice. See Uhrig v. Johnson, No. 24-
5601, 2025 WL 1827793, *2 (6th Cir. March 27, 2025) (affirming dismissal with
prejudice on judicial immunity grounds).
The Magistrate Judge did not clearly err when evaluating the Franklin County
Recorder’s Office either. The Court agrees that a county recorder’s office “is not a legal
entity capable of being sued.” (Id. at #169 (citing El-Bey v. United States, No. 1:21-cv-
574, 2022 WL 394379, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 9, 2022), report and recommendation
adopted, No. 1:21-cv-574, 2022 WL 2835003 (S.D. Ohio July 20, 2022) and Pratt v.
Ohio, No. 1:15-cv-510, 2015 WL 5447789 at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 16, 2015), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 1:15-cv-510, 2015 WL 5884895 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 7,
2015))). Thus, dismissal with prejudice is proper as to that Defendant.
Case: 2:25-cv-00310-DRC-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/03/25 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

6
Finally, the R&R correctly applied the pleading requirements to the remaining
Defendants. While Defendants Frandsen, Windsor, Hendrix, and the Franklin
County Treasurer are listed in the caption, Mitchell does not state any factual
allegations involving them. (See, e.g., Doc. 4-1, #142 (listing defendants)). And “[i]t is
a 	basic 	pleading 	requirement 	that 	a 	plaintiff 	attribute 	factual 	allegations 	to
particular defendants.” (Doc. 6, #170 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 544)). So the
Magistrate Judge did not err in recommending dismissal for those Defendants as
well.
Therefore, 	the 	Court 	ADOPTS 	the 	R&R 	(Doc. 	6), 	DISMISSES 	WITH
PREJUDICE Mitchell’s claims against the Judge Defendants and the Franklin
County Recorder’s Office, and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mitchell’s
claims against the attorney Defendants and the other remaining Defendants, except
for the claims against KeyBank National Association, which may proceed. (Docs. 4,
4-1, 5).
SO ORDERED.
November 3, 2025
DATE 	DOUGLAS R. COLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ciation, which	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h may proceed. (D
UGLAS R. COLE
ITED STATES DISTRICT J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	JU
Case: 2:25-cv-00310-DRC-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/03/25 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>