Stoutamire v. Joseph et al

Filing 37

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendationre 24 . Plaintiff's claims against defendant Clagg are DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Sandra S Beckwith on 2/28/12. (mb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Dwayne Stoutamire,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Lieutenant Adkins, et al,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-242

ORDER
Plaintiff Dwayne Stoutamire is an inmate at an Ohio state
prison.

His complaint, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983

against a number of Defendants, generally alleges that some of
the Defendants used excessive force against him, and that he
received inadequate medical care, all while incarcerated at the
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF).

After some of the

Defendants answered his original complaint, he sought leave to
file an amended complaint to add Mrs. Clagg, a medical
supervisor, to Count Four of his original complaint (which had
named Nurse Adkins).

The Magistrate Judge granted his motion to

amend, as none of the Defendants responded to it.

But the

Magistrate Judge then reviewed the amended claim pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e) and recommended that Mrs. Clagg be dismissed.
(Doc. 24)

The Report and Recommendation accurately states that

Stoutamire’s amended complaint does not contain any additional
factual allegations against Mrs. Clagg, and does not allege any
-1-

facts showing that Clagg actually participated in or knew about
the alleged denial of medical care by Nurse Adkins and/or others.
The mere fact that Clagg is a supervisor is insufficient to
impose personal liability upon her under Section 1983.
Stoutamire has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation.

(Doc. 31)

He argues that given his pro se

status, his complaint must be liberally construed but that the
Magistrate Judge would require him to “make every detailed
factual allegation” at this early stage of the case.
3)

(Doc. 31 at

He argues that his allegation that Mrs. Clagg was “involved”

and “aware” of the circumstances should be sufficient to allow
his claim to proceed.

And he suggests that he did not allege

that Mrs. Clagg was a supervisor and there is no stipulation to
that effect, so that any reliance on respondeat superior is
premature.
In reviewing Stoutamire’s proposed claim, the Court accepts
the well-pleaded factual allegations.

A claim will survive if

those allegations are “... enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the
complaint's allegations are true.”

Jones v. City of Cincinnati,

521 F.3d 555, 559 (6th Cir. 2008), citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).

In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.

1937 (2009), the Court held that a claim for relief is properly
alleged only if its well-pleaded factual allegations are

-2-

sufficient to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face.

Facial plausibility requires pleading facts that permit a

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged
misconduct.

If a complaint pleads facts that are “merely

consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the
line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to
relief.’”

Id. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-557).

In his motion to amend his claim, Stoutamire specifically
refers to Mrs. Clagg three different times as a “medical
supervisor.”

(See Doc. 11, Amended Complaint at pp. 1, 2 and 5)

But other than her title, Stoutamire alleges no facts that
plausibly suggest that Mrs. Clagg was involved in any of the
events he describes in his complaint.

In his objections, he

suggests that Mrs. Clagg might be liable for rules that she was
responsible for enforcing, and that other defendants may have
violated those rules.

He also suggests that discovery may reveal

that Mrs. Clagg was involved somehow in the denial of his medical
care.

Even liberally construing the amended complaint and

Stoutamire’s objections to the Report and Recommendation, it is
clear that he must allege facts that can plausibly support an
allegation that Mrs. Clagg engaged in some intentional conduct
that violated his constitutional right to adequate medical care.
As the Supreme Court made clear in Twombly and in Iqbal, it is
not enough to argue that he is entitled to discovery in order to

-3-

find out if he might have a plausible claim against Mrs. Clagg.
Even after the Magistrate Judge recommended that his amended
complaint be dismissed because he had not alleged sufficient
facts, Stoutamire has not come forward with any such facts in his
objections.
And as the Magistrate Judge concluded, liability under
Section 1983 cannot be based solely upon supervisory
responsibilities; that liability arises only upon some active
behavior on the part of each defendant, and not simply upon
negligence or an alleged failure to act.

See, e.g., Iqbal, 129

S.Ct. at 1948, noting that government officials “may not be held
liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates
under a theory of respondeat superior.”

As Stoutamire

specifically identified Mrs. Clagg as a supervisor but does not
allege any facts suggesting she engaged in any active
unconstitutional conduct towards him, the amended complaint fails
to plausibly state a claim against Mrs. Clagg.
For all of these reasons, the Court agrees with the
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

Stoutamire’s claims

against defendant Clagg are hereby dismissed.

The claims against

the other Defendants remain pending.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 28, 2012

s/Sandra S. Beckwith
Sandra S. Beckwith
Senior United States District Judge

-4-