Lester v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections et al

Filing 59

DECISION AND ENTRY adopting the Reports and Recommendations (Docs. 31, 51); granting Defendant's motion for extension of time (Doc. 52); Defendant's objection (Doc. 53) is overruled; Plaintiff's motions for default judgment (Docs. 15, 21) are denied; Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 36) is granted in part and denied in part. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 2/28/19. (rrs)(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
JIMMIE LESTER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
REHABILITATION AND
CORRECTION, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:16-cv-1065
Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

DECISION AND ENTRY
ADOPTING THE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Docs. 31, 51)
This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United
States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate
Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and submitted a Report and
Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s motions for default judgment be denied.
(Doc. 31). No objections were filed.
Subsequently, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Report and Recommendation
recommending that Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted in part
and denied in part. (Doc. 51). Defendant timely filed an objection (“Objection”). (Doc.
53). 1 2

1

The docket reflects that Plaintiff filed an “OBJECTION to [the] Report and Recommendation”
(Doc. 54) but Plaintiff’s filing is actually a memorandum in opposition to Defendant’s Objection.
2

Defendant filed an unopposed motion for extension of time before filing his Objection one day
after it was originally due. Defendant’s motion for extension (Doc. 52) is GRANTED and the
Court considers Defendant’s Objection (Doc. 53) timely filed.

Defendant’s Objection is unavailing. Defendant argues Plaintiff’s claims are
barred by the statute of limitations, but the Magistrate Judge properly concluded that,
pursuant to the governing two-year statute of limitations, Plaintiff can recover for
instances of alleged sexual abuse which occurred from November 9, 2014, through
February 5, 2016. Defendant argues Plaintiff did not exhaust his claims, but the
Magistrate Judge properly found that Defendant’s PLRA affirmative defense could not be
adjudicated based on the facts alleged on the face of the complaint. Finally, Defendant
argues she is entitled to qualified immunity, but the Court agrees with the Magistrate
Judge that Plaintiff’s pro se complaint is sufficient to state a clearly established claim for
relief under the Eighth Amendment. The Court is also cognizant of the Sixth Circuit’s
position that it is “generally inappropriate” for a district court to grant a Rule 12 motion
on the basis of qualified immunity. See Wesley v. Campbell, 779 F.3d 421, 434 (6th Cir.
2015).
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has
reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all
of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does
determine that the Reports and Recommendations should be and are hereby adopted in
their entirety. Accordingly:
1.

The Reports and Recommendations (Doc. 31, 51) are ADOPTED;

2.

Defendant’s motion for extension of time to Object (Doc. 52) is
GRANTED;

3.

Defendant’s Objection (Doc. 53) is OVERRULED;

2

4.

Plaintiff’s motions for default judgment (Docs. 15, 21) are DENIED;

5.

Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 36) is
GRANTED in part to the extent Plaintiff’s alleged claims of sexual abuse
include discrete acts pre-dating November 9, 2014, and DENIED in all
other respects.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date:

2/28/19

s/ Timothy S. Black
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge

3