Jenkins v. Mohr et al

Filing 6

ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Complaint: The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that plaintiff's claim based on the alleged inadequate "Administrative Tribunal" and "Grievance Process" be dismissed. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that defendants Lawrence and Parks be dismissed from the action. Objections to R&R due within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Report. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 4/4/2014. (er1)

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

LEONARD JENKINS,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:14-cv-248
Judge Frost
Magistrate Judge King

vs.

GARY C. MOHR, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a paraplegic state prisoner, brings this civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming a denial of needed medical
equipment, denial of an “Impartial Administrative Tribunal during the
Grievance Process,”

Complaint, ECF 1, PAGEID # 11, and denial of

adequate wound care by specialists.

This matter is now before the

Court for the initial screen of the Complaint required by 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e), 1915A.
Having reviewed the Complaint, the Court concludes that, at this
juncture, plaintiff’s claims of denial of needed medical equipment and
denial of adequate wound care by specialists may proceed. Because
prisoners

have

no

constitutional

right

to

an

adequate

grievance

procedure, Walker v. Michigan Dept. Of Corrections, 128 Fed. Appx.
441, 2005 WL 742743, **3 (6th Cir. April 1, 2005)(the due process
clause does not confer upon prison inmates a right to an effective
prison grievance procedure); see also Overholt v. Unibase Data Entry,

1

Inc.,

221

F.3d

plaintiff’s

1335,

claim

*3

based

(6th
on

Cir.

the

2000),

alleged

it

is

RECOMMENDED

inadequate

Tribunal” and “Grievance Process” be dismissed.

that

“Administrative

Because plaintiff’s

claims against defendants Mary Lawrence and Mona Parks are based only
on their resolution of plaintiff’s grievances, see Complaint, ¶ 140,
PAGEID # 18, it is FUTHER RECOMMENDED that defendants Lawrence and
Parks be dismissed from the action.
If plaintiff submits a completed summons, Marshals service form
and

copy

of

the

Complaint

for

each

defendant,

the

United

States

Marshals Service will be DIRECTED to serve each defendant by certified
mail.

Each defendant may 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 of the filing of the Complaint may
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
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

2

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: April 4, 2014

3