Johnson v. State of Ohio Employees and Employer's of Ohio Department Rehabilitation Correction et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS # 6 ; this action is hereby DISMISSED. Signed by Senior Judge Peter C Economus on 9/22/10. (sh1)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
ALONZO JOHNSON, Jr., Plaintiff, vs. Civil Action 2:09-CV-794 Judge Economus Magistrate Judge King
UNIT STAFF, ODRC MAJOR OF SECURITY, ROSS CORRECTIONAL, et al., Defendants.
ORDER Plainti f f , a state inmate, alleges that a corrections officer at the Ross Correctional Institution assaulted him without justification.1 In a
Report and Recommendation issued on September 7, 2010, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended that the action be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) because plaintiff did not allege that the actual defendants n a m ed in the Complaint "at least implicitly authorized, approved, or
knowingly acquiesced in the" alleged misconduct.
Report and Recommendation,
Doc. No. 6, at 2, citing Combs v. Wilkinson, 315 F.3d 548, 554 (6th Cir. 2002). This matter is now before the Court on plaintiff's objections to the Objection, Doc. No. 8. The Court will consider
Report and Recommendation. the matter de novo.
See 28 U.S.C. §636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
As the Magistrate Judge noted, the Complaint names as defendants, not the corrections officer who allegedly assaulted plaintiff, but various
supervisory officials at the Ross Correctional Institution and the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Also named as defendants are
Th e claims arising out of the alleged assault were severed from other claims originally filed in the Western D ivisio n of this Court. See Order, Doc. No. 4.
the "State Medical Board of Ohio," and "Attorney General Cordray."
Court agrees that the Complaint simply fails to allege that the individuals named as defendants actively engaged which plaintiff complains. Moreover, in or encouraged the assault about the State Medical Board of Ohio
appears to be a state agency over which this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction by operation of the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. (1989). See Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S.. 58, 66
Finally, the allege failure on the part of the Ohio Attorney General
to respond to plaintiff's allegations does not give rise to a constitutional violation. See Poe v. Haydon, 853 F.2d 418, 429 (6th Cir. 1988).
Plaintiff's Objection does not address the deficiencies identified by the Magistrate Judge. Rather, plaintiff engages in a rambling, nearly
incomprehensible recounting of grievances over the years against public officials C o ngress. ranging from prosecuting authorities in Hamilton County to
Plaintiff has offered no reason to conclude that the Report and
Recommendation should be rejected. The Report and Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED AND AFFIRMED. This
action is hereby DISMISSED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter FINAL JUDGMENT. Moreover, the Court concludes that an appeal from the judgment entered in this case would not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Peter C. Economus - September 22, 2010 PETER C. ECONOMUS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?