Galluzzo v. Edwards

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON MICHAEL ANTHONY GALLUZZO, Plaintiff, Case No. 3:25-cv-258 vs. ROBIN K. EDWARDS, et al., District Judge Michael J. Newman Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr. Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER: (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (Doc. No. 5); (2) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE PETER B. SILVAIN JR.’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 2); (3) DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S FEDERAL CLAIMS; DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE HIS STATE LAW CLAIMS; AND DISMISSING HIS PRO SE COMPLAINT (Doc. No. 3); (4) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Doc. No. 4); (5) CERTIFYING THAT AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH AND DENYING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS; AND (6) TERMINATING THIS CASE ON THE DOCKET ______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff brings the instant case pro se and in forma pauperis, challenging the foreclosure proceedings brought in state court against property he owns due to allegedly insufficient tax payments. Doc. No. 3 at PageID 56 (asserting “the property at issue is not a business property but private/personal property therefore not subject to property taxes under the Ohio Constitution”). Plaintiff asserts the named Defendants participated in those proceedings and have engaged in a “systemic pattern of constitutional violations perpetrated under the guise of color of law, violations of due process, lack of jurisdiction of the court, failure to state jurisdiction on the record, lack of an oath of office of a judicial officer, judicial malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance.”1 Id. at 1 Plaintiff names four Defendants: Champaign County Treasurer Robin K. Edwards; Champaign County Assistant Prosecutor Jane A. Napier; Champaign County Common Pleas Court Magistrate Scott Schockling; and Champaign County Court of Common Pleas Judge Nick A. Selvaggio. Doc. No. 3. PageID 55; see Doc. No. 5 at PageID 72. Construing his pro se complaint liberally in his favor, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), he asserts, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that Defendants have violated his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Doc. No. 3 at PageID 55-58. He also claims numerous violations of the Ohio Constitution. See id. at 56-59; see also Doc. No. 5. This case is before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. No. 2) and Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R (Doc. No. 5). Plaintiff also recently filed a pro se motion for a preliminary injunction. Doc. No. 4. Judge Silvain conducted an initial review of Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Doc. No. 2 at PageID 37-49. He recommends, inter alia, dismissing Plaintiff’s federal claims and his complaint under § 1915(e)(2) and Fed. R. of Civ. P. 12(h)(3) and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over, and dismissing without prejudice, Plaintiff’s state law claims. Id. at PageID 49. The Court has reviewed de novo, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), Plaintiff’s objections and all filings in this matter. Liberally construing Plaintiff’s pro se filings in his favor and accepting his factual allegations as true, see Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106, the Court finds no merit in his objections. Judge Silvain’s R&R is well reasoned, cogently written, and is not “clearly erroneous or … contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED; the R&R is ADOPTED; Plaintiff’s federal claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; his state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; his complaint is DISMISSED; and his motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED AS MOOT. The Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that for the reasons set forth in the R&R and herein, an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, Plaintiff is DENIED leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997). This case is TERMINATED on the Court’s docket. IT IS SO ORDERED. May 19, 2026 s/Michael J. Newman Hon. Michael J. Newman United States District Judge