Johnson v. Humphrey et al
Filing
17
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING 7 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1), with the exception of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment individual capacity conditions-of-confinement claim asserted against Defendant Eaches and Eighth Amendment individual capacity excessive-force claim asserted against Defendants McCroskey, Bell, and Rodgers. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 3/29/18. (sct)(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
TYRONE R. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL HUMPHREY, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:18-cv-43
Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman
DECISION AND ENTRY
ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 7)
This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United
States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the
Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on March 5, 2018,
submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 7). Plaintiff filed objections on March
15, 2018 (Doc. 8). 1
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 such Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby adopted in its
1
Plaintiff’s objections are not well-taken. The Report and Recommendation recommended
dismissal of several of Plaintiff’s claims, either because there were not adequate factual
allegations to support a claim or because there was no legal basis for a claim. Plaintiff’s
objections contain no new factual allegations that would lead this Court to decline to adopt the
Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff also does not address the legal deficiencies of certain
claims, including the fact that Plaintiff has improperly attempted to sue several supervisory
personnel under a respondeat superior theory that does not apply in § 1983 lawsuits.
1
entirety.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1-1) is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and
1915A(b)(1), with the exception of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment individual capacity
conditions-of-confinement claim asserted against Defendant Eaches and Eighth
Amendment individual capacity excessive-force claim asserted against Defendants
McCroskey, Bell, and Rodgers.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: March 29, 2018
________________________
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?