Barfield v. Erdos et al

Filing 65

ORDER denying [49 & 53] Plaintiff's fifth & sixth motion to amend complaint; adopting Report and Recommendation 55 ; overruling 57 plaintiff's objections. Signed by Judge Sandra S. Beckwith on 11/8/16. (mb)(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

Edward Barfield,
Plaintiff
v.

Case No. 1:15-cv-696

Ron Erdos, et al.,
Defendants

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation filed September 22, 2016 (Doc. 55), concerning plaintiff’s fifth and
sixth motions for leave to amend his complaint (Docs. 49 & 53). In the Report and
Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends that plaintiff’s motions should
be denied because they fail to clarify any connection of the alleged actions of Sergeant
Bare, C.O. Parish, C.O. John Doe, and the John Doe nurses in April and May 2016,
to the alleged actions of the named defendants that occurred six months earlier.
Plaintiff filed an objection (Doc. 57), which fails to meaningfully respond to the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and fails to demonstrate that the
conclusions and recommendation are factually or legally erroneous.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72(b), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon such
review, the Court finds that plaintiff’s objection to the Report and Recommendation
is overruled. The Report is adopted in full. Plaintiff’s fifth and sixth motions for
leave to amend his complaint (Docs 49 & 53) are denied. To the extend that plaintiff
invokes “retaliation” as the link that connects the alleged actions in April and May
2016 to those alleged to have occurred six months earlier, plaintiff has not provided
any facts to support a retaliation claim other than his “naked assertion” that the alleged
actions in April and May 2016 were retaliatory in nature.

This Court certifies that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) an appeal of this
Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore denies plaintiff leave to appeal
in forma pauperis. See McGore v Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997).
SO ORDERED.

Date: November 8, 2016

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

2