Bennett v. Mohr et al

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge George C Smith on 11/20/14. (lvw1)

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

JOHN BENNETT,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No.: 2:14-cv-1450
JUDGE SMITH
Magistrate Judge Abel

GARY C. MOHR, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
On October 7, 2014, the United States Magistrate Judge issued an Initial Screening
Report and Recommendation recommending that the case continue as to Defendants Jason
Bunting and Thomas King, and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims as to all other Defendants. (See Report
and Recommendation, Doc. 4). The parties were advised of their right to object to the Report
and Recommendation. This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (See Doc. 14). The Court will consider the
matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The Plaintiff raises ten objections, including primarily issues that were previously
considered by the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation. The Court
acknowledges that the Report and Recommendation incorrectly refers to Plaintiff as King, and it
should have said John Bennett. Further, Plaintiff’s Complaint refers to his confinement at
Marion Correctional Institution or MCI, not MaCI. However, with respect to the substantive
objections, the Court agrees with the findings of the Magistrate Judge that the Complaint does

not allege that Defendants Mohr, Voorhies, Bobby, Justice, Croft, Smith, Chatman, Paine,
Rinehart, Grisham, Black, Morgan, Straker, and Sims took any action to deprive Plaintiff of a
constitutional right. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, this
Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit, with the exception of the technical
corrections noted above.
The Report and Recommendation, Document 4, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This
case shall proceed against Defendant’s Jason Bunting and Thomas King. All other
Defendants are hereby dismissed.
Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (See Doc. 11). Because
the action has not yet progressed to the point that the Court is able to evaluate the merits of
Plaintiff’s claim, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel, Doc. No. 11, is DENIED
without prejudice to renewal at a later stage of the proceedings. See Henry v. City of Detroit
Manpower Dept., 763 F.2d 757, 760 (6th Cir. 1985)(en banc)(“[I]n considering an application
for appointment of counsel, district courts should consider plaintiff’s financial resources, the
efforts of plaintiff to obtain counsel, and whether plaintiff’s claim appears to have any merit.”).
The Clerk shall remove Documents 4 and 11 from the Court’s pending motions list.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ George C. Smith__________________
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2