Steele et al v. Jenkins et al

Filing 8

ORDER adopting and affirming re 6 Report and Recommendations; denying 2 Motion for TRO and Motion for Preliminary Injunction; and dismissing Plaintiffs' complaint. Signed by Judge George C. Smith on 10/6/2016. (kk)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification [Charles M Steele, 306-310 & Jerome Royster, 141-662, both at Chillicothe Correctional Institution, PO Box 5500, Chillicothe OH 45601])

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
CHARLES M. STEELE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

Case No.: 2:16-cv-727
JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH
Magistrate Judge Jolson

WARDEN CHARLOTTE JENKINS, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
On September 1, 2016, the United States Magistrate Judge issued an Order and Report
and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiffs Charles Steele and Jerome Royster’s
Motions for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be granted; that Plaintiffs’ Complaint be
dismissed; and that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction be denied. (See Order and Report and Recommendation, Doc. 6). The parties were
advised of their right to object to the Order and Report and Recommendation. This matter is
now before the Court on Plaintiff Steele’s Objections to the Order and Report and
Recommendation. (See Doc. 7). The Court will consider the matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The objections present the same issues presented to and considered by the Magistrate
Judge in the Order and Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s
conclusion that he has failed to state a claim for relief based on his allegation that Defendants
infringed upon his right to access the courts. Further, Plaintiff objects to the dismissal of his
claims on the Magistrate Judge’s initial screen rather than Defendants seeking dismissal. The

Magistrate Judge carefully set forth the basis for conducting the initial screen of a prisoner
complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). And, the Magistrate Judge carefully considered Plaintiffs
arguments regarding access to the Court. The Court agrees that there is no allegation that Mr.
Royster is unable to file his own pleadings with the Court. Therefore, for the reasons stated in
detail in the Order and Report and Recommendation, this Court finds that Plaintiff Steele’s
objections are without merit and are hereby OVERRULED.
The Order and Report and Recommendation, Document 6, is ADOPTED and
AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs Charles Steele and Jerome Royster’s Motions for Leave to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis is GRANTED; Plaintiffs’ Complaint is hereby DISMISSED; and Plaintiffs’
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.
The Clerk shall remove Documents 2, 6, and 7 from the Court’s pending motions list.
The Clerk shall terminate this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ George C. Smith__________________
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2