Kitchen v. Lucasville Correctional Institution et al

Filing 31

ENTRY AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 28 ): The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 28 ) in its entirety and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 16 ) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Matthew W. McFarland on 02/07/2024. (kaf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI MICHAEL ALLEN KITCHEN, Plaintiff, Case No. l:22-cv-500 Judge Matthew W. McFarland Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr. V. LUCASVILLE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, et al., Defendants. ENTRY AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 28) This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 28) of United States Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr., to whom this case is referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Report recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Doc. 16) be denied. (See Report, Doc. 28.) Plaintiff addressed the Report in his response to a separate Order to Show Cause, which the Court construes as Objections to the Report. (Response, Doc. 30, Pg. ID 133-34.) Thus, the matter is ripe for the Court's review. Plaintiff was an inmate at the Lucasville Correctional Institution when Correctional Officers A. Corns and J. Romine allegedly "brutally assaulted" him "for no reason whatsoever." (Compl., Doc. 1, Pg. ID 5.) He then brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Corns, Romine, the Lucasville Correctional Institution, and the Ohio Department of Corrections. (Compl., Doc. 1, P.&_ID 3, 5). On January 19, 2023, this Court dismissed most of Plaintiff's claims but allowed him to proceed on his Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Corns and Romine in their individual capacities. (Order, Doc. 7, Pg. ID 41.) On May 26, 2026, Plaintiff moved to amend his Complaint to include Correctional Officers Kyle Cox, William Jewel, Travis Wellman, Bryan Lawless, Chad Taylor, and Lieutenant Stephen Hale ("Proposed Defendants") as new defendants "on [his] Eight[h] Amendment claim." (See Proposed Am. Compl., Doc. 17, Pg. ID 70-73.) Magistrate Judge Silvain found that Plaintiff did not allege specific facts to show that the Proposed Defendants used excessive force against him in violation of the Eight Amendment. (Report, Doc. 28, Pg. ID 127.) So, Magistrate Judge Silvain recommended that this Court deny the motion because Plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief against any of the Proposed Defendants. (Id. at Pg. ID 127-28.) Plaintiff does not provide any details in his proposed Amended Complaint other than that Proposed Defendants were "involved" in his attack. (Am. Compl., Doc. 17, Pg. ID 75.) Plaintiff notes for the first time in his objection that Officer Jewel hit him in the attack. (Response, Doc. 30, Pg. ID 133-34.) But, the Court cannot consider this new allegation because it was not raised in the original Complaint. See Morgan v. Trierweiler, 67 F.4th 362,367 (6th Cir. 2023). Plaintiff does not raise any other objections to Magistrate Judge Silvain's findings. (See Response, Doc. 30.) Thus, the Court finds that the Report is proper. Plaintiff also argues that he is unable to adequately pursue his claims without counsel. (Response, Doc. 30, Pg. ID 133.) Generally, civil plaintiffs are not entitled to 2 court-appointed counsel, see Bryant v. McDonough, 72 F.4th 149, 152 (6th Cir. 2023), and prose litigants are expected to comply with the rules governing civil cases, see McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). Therefore, Plaintiff's prose status is not a basis to sidestep federal pleading standards. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Objections are not well-taken and are accordingly OVERRULED. Thus, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 28) in its entirety and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 16) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT By: ~~~~ JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND 3

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?