Lawson v. McQuate et al

Filing 18

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: that # 13 MOTION filed by James Harold Lawson, be DINED; Objections to R&R due by 10/15/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel on 9/26/12. (sh1)

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

James H. Lawson, Jr.,
Plaintiff

:
:
:

v.
Jessica McQuate, et al.,
Defendants

Civil Action 2:12-cv-00533
Judge Smith

:

Magistrate Judge Abel

:
Report and Recommendation
Plaintiff James H. Lawson, Jr., a state prisoner, brings this action alleging that
defendants have denied him medical care. This matter is before the Magistrate Judge
on plaintiff’s August 23, 2012 petition for injunction (doc. 13).
Plaintiff Lawson seeks an order preventing the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction from transferring him to another facility during the
pendency of this action. He alleges that he was told during the grievance process that he
would be transferred to another facility where he would be taken care of if he stopped
this process. Plaintiff fears that he will be transferred to a facility where he will not have
the resources necessary to continue to litigate this case. Plaintiff maintains that he has
been subjected to verbal harassment from a guard during pill call. He does not believe
his life is in physical danger. Plaintiff wishes to remain at the Chillicothe Correctional
Institution for the remainder of his sentence.

1

This Court does not have jurisdiction to issue an injunction against the Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation, which is not a party to this action. Furthermore, plaintiff
does not have a liberty interest in being assigned to a particular institution. The
determination of whether an inmate has a liberty interest in avoiding a particular
condition of confinement or a particular institutional placement is governed by Sandin
v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). Under Sandin, transfers to other institutions that do no
impose either atypical or significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of
prison life do not implicate an inmate’s constitutional due process rights. Id. at 484.
For the reasons stated above, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that
plaintiff’s August 23, 2012 petition for injunction (doc. 13) be DENIED.
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. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B); Rule 72(b),
Fed. R. Civ. P.
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);
United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005); Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373,

2

380 (6th Cir. 1995). Even when timely objections are filed, appellate review of issues not
raised in those objections is waived. Willis v. Sullivan, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991).

s/ Mark R. Abel
United States Magistrate Judge

3