Houston v. Lester et al

Filing 12

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 9 Report and Recommendations and dismissing the complaint in this case for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted. Signed by Judge James L Graham on 9/1/2015. (ds)(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
Hollis D. Houston,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case NO. 2:15-cv-2447

Chad Lester, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff, a state inmate confined at the North Central
Correctional Institution, brought the instant action under 42
U.S.C. §1983, against several defendants associated with the Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“the Department”),
contending that his constitutional rights were violated due to
various alleged conditions at the institution and prison medical
centers.
Whitehall

Plaintiff also asserted claims against officers of the
and

Grandview

Police

Departments,

Franklin

County

Prosecutor Ron O’Brien, and Assistant Franklin County Prosecutor
Daniel Lenert.
The

magistrate

judge

conducted

an

initial

screen

of

plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) to identify
cognizable claims and to recommend dismissal of any claims which
were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or sought monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief.

On August 7, 2015, the magistrate

judge issued a report and recommendation concluding: 1) that the
claims against the police officers and prosecutors failed to allege
facts sufficient to indicate unconstitutional activity and were
barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); 2) that the

claims against the prosecutors were barred by the doctrine of
prosecutorial immunity; 3) that plaintiff’s claims against the
Department officials concerning the prison medical centers failed
to state a claim for relief, as plaintiff failed to plead that he
was denied adequate medical care and had no standing to assert such
claims on behalf of other inmates; and 4) that plaintiff made only
general complaints about prison conditions and failed to plead
sufficient facts regarding his own confinement to sustain an Eighth
Amendment

claim.

Doc.

9,

pp.

5-8.

The

magistrate

judge

recommended that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed for failure to
state a claim for which relief could be granted.
The report and recommendation specifically advised plaintiff
that objections to the report and recommendation were due within
fourteen days, and that the 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 waiver of the right to appeal the
judgment of the District Court.”

Doc. 9, p. 9.

The time period

for filing objections to the report and recommendation has expired,
and no objections to the report and recommendation have been filed.
Accordingly, the court adopts the report and recommendation
(Doc. 9).

The

complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1915(e) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim
for which relief may be granted.

Date: September 1, 2015

s/James L. Graham
James L. Graham
United States District Judge

2