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.)

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