Al-Mosawi v. Mohr et al

Filing 31

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Gary Mohr, Robinson be "GRANTED"; Objections to R&R due by 2/4/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel on 1/16/13. (sh1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Mahdi Al Mosawi,

v.
Director Gary Mohr, et al.,
Defendants

Case No. 2:11-cv01155

:

Plaintiff

:
:

Judge Marbley

:

Magistrate Judge Abel

:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Mahdi Al Mosawi, a State prisoner, brings this action under 28 U.S.C.
§1983 alleging that his treating physician committed medical malpractice when he
misdiagnosed plaintiff and that the medical staff at the prison were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs. This matter is before the Magistrate Judge in
accordance the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) for a report and recommendation
on defendants Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC") Director
Gary Mohr and Chillicothee Correctional Institution ("CCI") Warden Norm Robinson's
September 21, 2012 motion for summary judgment (doc. 29).
Defendants argue that plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
within the prison grievance system established by Ohio Administrative Code § 5120-931. Exhaustion is mandatory under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and unexhausted
claims cannot be brought in court. 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211
(2007). In his response to defendants' motion for summary judgment, plaintiff concedes

that he did not exhaust his administrative remedies and that defendants' motion for
summary judgment should be granted on that basis.
For the reasons set out above, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS defendants
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC") Director Gary Mohr and
Chillicothee Correctional Institution ("CCI") Warden Norm Robinson's September 21,
2012 motion for summary judgment (doc. 29) be GRANTED.
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within
fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties a motion for reconsideration by the
Court, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof
in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R.
Civil. P. 72(b).
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District
Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-152 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
See also Small v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989).

s/Mark R. Abel
United States Magistrate Judge