Golsby v. Jeffreys et al

Filing 53

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 49 Report and Recommendation. The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 34 , and DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice. The Court further DENIES the remaining pending motions 35 42 43 as moot, and TERMINATES this matter on the Courts docket. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 6/24/2014. (km1) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/24/2014: # 1 Certified Mail Receipt) (km1).

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

BRIAN GOLSBY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ROB JEFFREYS, et al.,
Defendants.

NO. 1:13-CV-00157

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (doc. 49), and Plaintiff’s Objection
(doc. 51).
AFFIRMS

For the reasons indicated herein, the Court ADOPTS and

the

Magistrate

Judge’s

Report

and

Recommendation

and

DISMISSES this matter from the Court’s docket.
Plaintiff is an inmate currently incarcerated at the
Toledo Correctional Institution, but previously incarcerated at the
Lebanon Correctional Institution (LeCI) (doc. 49).

While at LeCI

he alleges he faced threats of violence and was involved in violent
altercations from which Defendants allegedly failed to protect him
(Id.).
the

Plaintiff filed a grievance regarding his concerns, but

record

shows

he

filed

the

instant

completion of the grievance appeal (Id.).

matter

prior

to

the

As such, the Magistrate

Judge found Defendants’ argument correct that Plaintiff failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison
Reform Litigation Act (Id. citing Freeman v. Francis, 196 F.3d 641,
645 (6th Cir. 1999)).

Plaintiff has objected to the Report and Recommendation,
contending he could not wait for the grievance procedure to be
exhausted because his life was in danger (doc. 51).

He appears to

argue that because he sought injunctive relief in his Complaint,
the Court should forgo the exhaustion requirement.
Having

reviewed

this

matter,

the

Court

finds

the

Magistrate Judge’s conclusion correct that Plaintiff failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this suit.

At

this juncture, as Plaintiff has been moved to another institution,
it is unclear what sort of injunctive relief, if any, is applicable
to protect Plaintiff from threats of violence at LeCI, where he is
not housed.

The clear mandate of the PLRA requires exhaustion of

administrative remedies prior to filing federal suit.
Bock, 549 U.S. 201, 204 (2007).

Jones v.

By filing his Complaint too

early, Plaintiff did not comply with the PLRA and Defendants are
therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Proper Notice has been given to the parties under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would
waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the
Report and Recommendation in a timely manner.
Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

United States v.

As of the date of this

Order, no objections have been filed.
Having reviewed this matter de novo pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§

636,

the

Court

finds

the

Magistrate

Judge’s

Report

and

Recommendation thorough, well-reasoned, and correct. Accordingly,
the Court hereby ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge’s Report
2

and Recommendation (doc. 49), GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (doc. 34), and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint without
prejudice.

The Court further DENIES the remaining pending motions

(docs. 35, 42, 43) as moot, and TERMINATES this matter on the
Court’s docket.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2014

s/S. Arthur Spiegel
S. Arthur Spiegel
United States Senior District Judge

3