Durham v. Mohr et al

Filing 46

OPINION AND ORDER denying 40 Motion for a ruling ; denying 44 Motion to Stay; denying 45 Motion to Clairfy. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 6/18/2015. (pes)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ROY A. DURHAM, JR.,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action 2:14-cv-581
Judge Marbley
Magistrate Judge King

GARY C. MOHR, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in the Toledo Correctional
Institution (“ToCI”), brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging that defendants failed to place plaintiff in protective
custody and thus caused plaintiff to be subjected to harassment and
assault by other inmates, in violation of plaintiff’s rights under the
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

This matter is

now before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for a ruling, ECF 40;
plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings, ECF 44; and plaintiff’s motion
to clarify, ECF 45.
The undersigned previously recommended that defendants’ motion to
dismiss certain claims and certain parties be granted.

Order and

Report and Recommendation, ECF 37 (“Report and Recommendation”).
Thereafter, plaintiff submitted 170 pages of “exhibits.”

ECF 38.

On

April 27, 2015, the Court docketed plaintiff’s objections, which bear
a handwritten date of April 13, 2015, to this recommendation.
Defendants responded to the objections.

See ECF 41.

ECF 39.

Upon plaintiff’s

motion, ECF 42, the Court granted plaintiff until June 10, 2015, to

1

supplement the objections.

Order, ECF 43.

No supplement was received

by this Court.
Plaintiff has now filed two motions that appear to be missing
attachments or pages but which express uncertainty as to whether the
Court and defense counsel received his April 13, 2015 objections.
40, 45.

ECF

Plaintiff explains that, although these objections were

submitted to ToCI officials for mailing, “the original copy (Court’s
copy) of his objection had been returned back to him by this Court
without any ruling or order to his objection.”
also ECF 45, pp. 2-3.

ECF 40, p. 7.

See

Plaintiff asks this Court to mail a copy of his

objections to defense counsel and to rule on his April 13, 2015
objection.

Id. at 1-2, 7-8.

Plaintiff has also filed a motion to stay proceedings, contending
that an ongoing campaign of harassment has denied him access to the
courts by limiting the funds available for his civil lawsuits,
limiting his access to or denying his access to the law library, and
depriving him of legal materials while in segregation.
ECF 44.

See generally

As a result of these deprivations, plaintiff contends, he

“cannot conduct effective litigation” or pursue discovery.
9, 10, 23, 27-28.

Id. at 8-

He therefore asks the Court to grant him a “stay of

the proceedings and stay of discovery; and toll the time to which
Plaintiff have to file his claims against (S.O.C.F.)
officials/employees.”

Id. at 10.

As set forth supra, the Court has in fact received and docketed
plaintiff’s April 13, 2015 objections, ECF 39, and defendants have

2

responded to those objections.

See ECF 41.

Therefore, to the extent

that plaintiff asks this Court to serve a copy of his objections on
defense counsel, see ECF 40 and 45, those requests are DENIED as moot.
Plaintiff does not specifically argue in his motion to stay, ECF
44, that the alleged campaign of harassment has prevented him from
timely supplementing his objections in accordance with the earlier
Order, ECF 43.

However, construing plaintiff’s allegations liberally,

see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the Court will assume
that plaintiff intends to allege that, for reasons beyond his control,
he has been unable to timely supplement those objections.

The Court

will therefore grant plaintiff additional time - until July 2, 2015 in which to supplement his objections.

Plaintiff is ADVISED that,

after this date, the Court will regard his objections as ripe for
consideration, regardless of whether plaintiff has supplemented those
objections.

As it relates to the broader prosecution of this case,

plaintiff’s motion to stay, ECF 44, is DENIED without prejudice to
renewal following resolution of the objections.

Similarly, to the

extent that plaintiff seeks a ruling on his objections, ECF 40, the
Court has established a schedule supra regarding those objections and
plaintiff’s request in that regard is therefore DENIED as moot.

June 18, 2015

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

3