Carter v. Twin Valley Behavior et al
Filing
6
ORDER - The Report and Recommendation 3 is ADOPTED; to the extent Plaintiff seeks leave to amend her Complaint to cure the deficiencies noted in the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED; to the extent Plaintiff seeks to have the Court construe her proposed amended Complaint as an Objection to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff's Objection is OVERRULED; Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 11/27/12. (jk1)
-----------~~~-
~··-···-··--
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
CARDIONAL VINES CARTER,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:12-cv-795
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Deavers
v.
TWIN VALLEY BEHAVIOR, eta/.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of the September 24, 2012
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (ECF No.3.) After conducting
an initial screen of Plaintiffs Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Magistrate
Judge recommended that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. On October 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed what appears to
be a proposed amended Complaint. (ECF No.4.) To the extent Plaintiff seeks leave to
amend her Complaint to cure the deficiencies noted in the Report and
Recommendation, Plaintiffs Motion is DENIED. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to have
the Court construe her proposed amended Complaint as an Objection to the Report
and Recommendation, Plaintiffs Objection is OVERRULED. For the reasons that
follow, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED.
Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.
I. STANDARD
The Magistrate Judge, in her Report and Recommendation, set forth the
standard governing initial screens pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Finding it
unnecessary to repeat the recitation of that standard here, the Court adopts the
standard set forth in the Report and Recommendation.
II. ANALYSIS
As the Magistrate Judge observed, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff appears to allege that medical personnel at
Twin Valley Behavior compelled her to ingest medication against her will. Beyond that,
the Court cannot discern what Plaintiff attempts to allege in her Complaint. As such,
Plaintiff's allegations fail to establish a cognizable claim to relief. See Fed R. Civ. P.
8(a) ("A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain ... a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief .... ). The
Complaint cannot withstand an initial screen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and must
be dismissed.
Plaintiff's proposed amended Complaint does nothing to alter the outcome.
First, to the extent Plaintiff seeks leave to amend her Complaint to cure the deficiencies
set forth in the Report and Recommendation, her request is denied. Rule 15(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a plaintiff to amend the complaint by leave of
court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Amendments are to be "freely granted when justice so
requires." /d. The Sixth Circuit, however, has explained that courts should not grant
leave to amend where the amendment would be futile. Yuhasz v. Brush Wellman, Inc.,
2
341 F.3d 559, 569 (6th Cir. 2003). In other words, amendments need not be granted if
the amended Complaint would not survive an initial screen or a motion to dismiss.
Brown v. Owens Corning lnv. Review Comm., 622 F.3d 564, 574 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing
Rose v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 417, 420 (6th Cir. 2000)). Here,
Plaintiff's proposed amended Complaint fails to set forth any additional facts that could
plausibly entitle her to relief. In fact, Plaintiff's new allegations are more difficult to
discern than those contained in her initial Complaint. Thus, permitting Plaintiff to
amend her Complaint would be futile because her amended Complaint would
nevertheless fail to withstand an initial screen.
Second, even if the Court construes Plaintiff's proposed amended Complaint as
an Objection to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff's Complaint must
nevertheless be dismissed. In the first instance, "a general objection to a magistrate
judge's report, which fails to specify the issues of contention, does not suffice .... "
Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981, 994 (6th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Plaintiff does
not specify her issues of contention with the Report and Recommendation. Moreover,
as discussed above, Plaintiff's proposed amended Complaint fails to add facts sufficient
to establish a cognizable claim to relief. The entirety of Plaintiff's Statement of Claim
contained in her proposed amended Complaint reads as follows:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Facts. Judge Robert G. Montgomary did not write a forced
psychotropes medications.
Fact. They Judge has to file in with the ones done.
Facts. It made my blood pressure [go] up.
Fact. I had mental agony distress, gr[i]ef, misery.
Facts. Pain, afflictions [illegible] on my mind [illegible].
[Illegible] Malone was involved.
(Am. Compl. 3, ECF No. 4.) Even if combined with the factual allegations in Plaintiff's
3
original Complaint, these new facts simply fail to implicate a cognizable claim to relief.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is
ADOPTED. (ECF No.3.) To the extent Plaintiff seeks leave to amend her Complaint
to cure the deficiencies noted in the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff's Motion is
DENIED. (ECF No.4.) To the extent Plaintiff seeks to have the Court construe her
proposed amended Complaint as an Objection to the Report and Recommendation,
Plaintiff's Objection is OVERRULED. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Clerk is DIRECTED to
enter judgment in favor of Defendants and to terminate this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
nfiiCHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
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?