Ahmed v. Ohio State Highway Patrol et al

Filing 38

Memorandum Opinion. This Court has reviewed de novo the portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. After careful review of the record, this Court finds that Magistrate William H. Baug hman, Jr. intended to include the word "not" when he stated that the Commission and the Highway Patrol are "persons subject to suit under Section 1983." (Docket # 35 at 7). This Court supports the finding on the grounds that the Magistrate's heading of that section stated that "Defendants Highway Patrol, Turnpike Commission, a Highway Patrol dog and troopers in an official capacity may not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983." (emphasis added) (Docket # 35 at 7). This interpretation is consistent with the Magistrate's citation to the United States Supreme Court case Will v. Mich. Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (holding that neither state nor its officials acting in their official capac ities are persons under Section 1983). As such, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman Jr. is hereby ADOPTED subject to the aforementioned correction to the sentence on page 7 for clarity that the Commission and the Hig hway Patrol are not persons subject to suit under Section 1983. Thus, the Plaintiff's complaint is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety with PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. Judge Donald C. Nugent on 9/16/2019. Related documents 35 , 23 , 21 , 1 . (M,S)