Stepler v. Warden, Hocking Correctional Facility et al

Filing 5

ORDER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION : It is recommended that the claim against the defendant institutional inspector be dismissed. It is ordered that remaining defendants may proceed in this action as to re 4 Complaint. The US Marshal is DIRECTED to effect service of process on each remaining defendants, who shall have forty-five(45) days after service of process to respond to the complaint. ( Objections to R&R due by 1/22/2013). Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 1/02/13. (rew)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
HENRY L. STEPLER,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action 2:12-cv-1209
Judge Sargus
Magistrate Judge King

WARDEN, HOCKING CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER AND
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATON

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Hocking Correctional Facility [HCF”],
brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming a
denial of his First Amendment rights in connection with the alleged
denial of Kosher meals.

This matter is now before the Court for the

initial screen of the Complaint required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e),
1915A.
Named as defendants are the warden and deputy warden of HCF, the
kitchen supervisor and a member of the kitchen staff at HCF, HCF’s
chaplain and its institutional inspector.

As it relates to the latter

defendant, the Complaint alleges that the institutional inspector
failed to conduct an adequate investigation of plaintiff’s grievance
and therefore failed to correct the problems about which plaintiff
complained.

Complaint, PAGEID # 19.

This Court concludes that the

Complaint fails to state a claim against the institutional inspector.
An inmate has no constitutional right to an effective grievance

1

procedure.

LaFlame v. Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department, 3 Fed.

Appx. 346, **2 (6th Cir. January 31, 2001)(“He cannot premise a § 1983
claim on allegations that the jail’s grievance procedure was
inadequate because there is no inherent constitutional right to an
effective prison grievance procedure.”).

See also Israfil v. Parks,

2010 WL 4642978, *1 (S.D. Ohio August 18, 2010).

Because it appears

that the claim asserted against the defendant institutional inspector
is premised on that defendant’s alleged failure to properly resolve
plaintiff’s grievance, the Court concludes that the claim against this
defendant cannot proceed.
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the claim against the defendant
institutional inspector be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
It is ORDERED that, as it relates to the remaining defendants,
the action may proceed.

Should plaintiff provide a copy of the

Complaint and a Marshal service form for each of the remaining
defendants,1 the United States Marshal is DIRECTED to effect service of
process on each of the remaining defendants, who shall have forty-five
(45) days after service of process to respond to the Complaint.
Plaintiff is ADVISED that the claims against any defendant not served
with process within 120 days will be dismissed.

See Fed. R. Civ. P.

4(m).
If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report
and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file

2

and serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation,
specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part
thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto.
U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

28

Response to objections must

be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy
thereof.

Fed. R. Civ. 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 of the right to appeal the
decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of
Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States
v. Walters,

638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

s/Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge

DATE: January 2, 2013

1

Plaintiff has provided a summons for each of the named defendants.

3