Lawson v. McQuate et al

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge George C Smith on 11-14-12. (ga)

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

James Harold Lawson,
Plaintiff

Judge Smith

:

Jessica McQuate,

Civil Action 2:12-cv-00533

:

v.

:
:

Magistrate Judge Abel

Defendant
:
ORDER
Plaintiff James Harold Lawson, a state prisoner, brings this action alleging that
defendants have denied him medical care. This matter is before the Court on
Magistrate Judge Abel's September 26, 2012 Report and Recommendation that
plaintiff's August 23, 2012 petition for an injunction be denied (doc. 18). Plaintiff has not
filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.1
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

1

On September 26, 2012, the Clerk of Court received an untimely reply in support
of his petition, which plaintiff mailed on September 24, 2012. See doc. 19
1

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.
The Magistrate Judge correctly noted that 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.
Upon de novo review in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B),
the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and DENIES plaintiff's petition
for an injunction (Doc. 13).

/S/ George C. Smith
George C. Smith
United States District Judge

2

3