Park v. Morgan et al

Filing 9

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that plaintiff's 4 complaint, as amended 8 be Dismissed with prejudice. Any appeal of this matter would not be taken in good faith, and therefore Deny plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Objections to R&R due by 6/12/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 5/20/2015. (art)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

---------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

WALTER E. PARK, III,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:15-cv-182

Barrett, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.

vs

DONALD MORGAN, et al.,
Defendants.

REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the pro se prisoner-plaintiffs motion for leave to file
an amended complaint adding a request for damages as relief based on allegations set forth in the
original complaint. (See Doc. 8). The amendment to the complaint is allowed in light of the
undersigned's previous order issued April23, 2015 granting plaintiff permission to file an
amended complaint. (See Doc. 7, p. 1, at PAGEID#: 50).
However, the addition of a request for damages does not change the undersigned's
conclusion, as set forth in a prior Report and Recommendation issued April10, 2015 (see Doc.
5), that the complaint is subject to dismissal at the screening stage because it fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. The plaintiffs complaint (Doc. 4), as amended (Doc. 8), be DISMISSED with
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(l).
2. The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that for the foregoing reasons an
appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith
and therefore deny plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth,

-------------~-----------------------------

114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997).

Is/Karen L. Litkovitz
Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge

Date: 5/20/15

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
WALTER E. PARK, III,
Plaintiff,
vs

Case No. 1:15-cv-182
Barrett, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.

DONALD MORGAN, et al.,
Defendants.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to this Report & Recommendation ("R&R") within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after
being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely
motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) of the
R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the
objections. A party shall respond to an opponent's objections within FOURTEEN DAYS after
being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make objections in accordance with this
procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States
v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
cbc