Boston v. Mohr et al

Filing 5

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 3 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Judge James L Graham on 8/25/2015. (ds)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.) [Transferred from ohsd on 8/25/2015.]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Lamar Boston,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case NO. 2:15-cv-2660

Gary Mohr, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff,

a

state

inmate

confined

at

the

Ohio

State

Penitentiary, brought the instant action under 42 U.S.C. §1983,
against several defendants associated with the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction (“the Department”), contending that
his constitutional rights were violated due to various alleged
conditions and incidents at the institution.

The magistrate judge

conducted an initial screen of plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) to identify cognizable claims and to recommend
dismissal of any claims which were frivolous, malicious, failed to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or sought monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

On July

30, 2015, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation
concluding that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief
against defendant Gary Mohr, the director of the Department, and
defendant “Legal Services,” described by plaintiff as being an
entity responsible for overseeing disciplinary proceedings.
3, pp. 5-6.

Doc.

The magistrate judge further concluded that, insofar

as plaintiff sought monetary damages from defendant Legal Services,
a state agency, and from defendant Mohr in his official capacity as
a director of a state agency, this claim was barred by the Eleventh

Amendment.

Doc. 3, p. 6.

The magistrate judge recommended that

the claims against defendants Mohr and Legal Services be dismissed
with prejudice.

The magistrate judge also noted that plaintiff is

incarcerated in Mahoning County, that plaintiff’s claims concern
incidents and conditions of confinement which allegedly occurred at
his place of confinement, and that the remaining claims are against
defendants who do not reside in this district.

The magistrate

judge concluded that venue in this court is not proper, and
recommended that this action be transferred to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Doc. 3, pp. 6-7.
The report and recommendation specifically advised plaintiff
that objections to the report and recommendation were due within
fourteen days, and that the failure to object to the report and
recommendation “will result in a waiver of the right to de novo
review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the
judgment of the District Court.”

Doc. 3, pp. 7-8.

The time period

for filing objections to the report and recommendation has expired,
and no objections to the report and recommendation have been filed.
Accordingly, the court adopts the report and recommendation
(Doc. 3).

The claims against defendants Mohr and Legal Services

are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) for
failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted.

This

action is transferred to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown.

Date: August 25, 2015

s/James L. Graham
James L. Graham
United States District Judge

2