Easley v. Burns et al

Filing 10

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 9 . The following causes of action alleged in plaintiffs complaint are dismissed on the ground that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted by this Court: 1) plaintiffs clai ms against defendants Kasich, Mohr, and Erdos ; 2) his claim that defendants Larr, Erdos, Prise, Burns, and Cadogan violated his rights to confidentiality; and 3) his due process claims against defendants Greene, Sammons, and Felts relating to disc iplinary proceedings at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility. This case will proceed with the following claims: 1) plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Burns, Prise, Larr, Cadogan, Durner, and Goodman; 2) his First Amendment ret aliation claim against defendants Prise, Goodman, and Burns; and 3) his claim that defendant Felts violated his privacy rights by disclosing information overheard in plaintiffs mental health consultations. Signed by Judge Sandra S Beckwith on 6/27/16. (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
D. Easley,
Plaintiff
v.

Case No. 1:16-cv-331

Kathryn Burns, et al.,
Defendants

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation filed June 1, 2016 (Doc. 9).
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. See United States
v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). As of the date of this Order, no objections
to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation have been filed.
Having reviewed this matter de novo pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, we find the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation correct.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. The following causes of action alleged in
plaintiff’s complaint are dismissed on the ground that plaintiff has failed to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted by this Court: 1) plaintiff’s claims against
defendants Kasich, Mohr, and Erdos ; 2) his claim that defendants Larr, Erdos, Prise,
Burns, and Cadogan violated his rights to confidentiality; and 3) his due process
claims against defendants Greene, Sammons, and Felts relating to disciplinary
proceedings at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility.
This case will proceed with the following claims: 1) plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment claim against defendants Burns, Prise, Larr, Cadogan, Durner, and
Goodman; 2) his First Amendment retaliation claim against defendants Prise,
Goodman, and Burns; and 3) his claim that defendant Felts violated his privacy rights

by disclosing information overheard in plaintiff’s mental health consultations.

Date: June 27, 2016

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

2