Anderson v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction et al

Filing 10

ORDER adopting and affirming 4 the Report and Recommendation; denying 6 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend; denying 7 Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Proceedings. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 6/8/17. (jk) (This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Zachary Anderson,
Plaintiff,
V.

Case No. 2:16-cv-1009

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation

Judge Michael H. Watson

and Correction, et al..

Magistrate Judge Jolson
Defendants.

ORDER

On November 16, 2016, Magistrate Judge Jolson Issued a Report and
Recommendation ("R&R") concerning the disposition of Zachary Anderson's
("Plaintiff") § 1983 Complaint against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and

Correction ("ODRC") and various ODRC medical staff members ("ODRC Staff")
alleging violations of Plaintiffs rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United
States Constitution. R&R, ECF No. 4. The R&R reached two conclusions of law.

First, It found that Plaintiffs claim for damages against the ODRC and the ODRC
Staff In their official capacities was barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the
United States Constitution. Id. at 3. Second, It found that while It was unclear

what type of relief Plaintiffsought from the ODRC Staff In their Individual

capacities, the ambiguity did not need to be resolved because the Complaint
nevertheless failed to state a claim. Id. at 4. Specifically, the R&R found that,
even taken as true, Plaintiffs allegations did not amount to a violation of his

Eighth Amendment rights. Id. Accordingly, the R&R recommended dismissal of
PiaintifTs Complaint. Id. at 7.
The R&R notified the parties of their right to file objections to the R&R

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Id.
at 7. The R&R further specifically advised the parties that the failure to object to
the R&R within fourteen days would result in a waiver of the right to de novo
review by the District Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the
District Court. Id. at 8.

Plaintiff did not object to the conclusions reached in the R&R within that

fourteen-day time frame, instead, he moved for leave to amend his Complaint
pursuant to Rule 15 in order to cure its deficiencies. Mot., ECF No. 6. Plaintiff

did not attach a proposed amended complaint to his motion or otherwise explain
the amendments he planned to make.

The Court should freely grant a leave to amend "when justice so requires."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Court is not required to grant leave to amend,

however, when amendment would be futile. See Seals v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
546 F.3d 766, 770 (6th Cir. 2008). Allowing Plaintiff to file an amended

complaint in this case would be futile because he has made no showing that he
can cure the deficiencies set forth in the R&R. That is, the R&R concluded that

even accepting his allegations as true, they simply did not rise to the level of an

Eighth Amendment violation. Plaintiff did not object to that conclusion or

demonstrate how he could cure that deficiency. Because the recommendation

was based on a conclusion that Plaintlfrs allegations do not rise to the level of a
constitutional violation, amendment would be futile and Plaintiff's motion is
denied.

Plaintiff also moved to stay proceedings pending his securement of

council. ECF No. 7. Given the Court's order adopting the R&R and denying
PiaintifTs motion for leave to amend, this motion is denied as moot.

For the foregoing reasons, the R&R is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED.

PiaintifTs Eighth Amendment claim is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice for
failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend is DENIED, and

PiaintifTs motion to stay proceedings pending the securement of counsel is also
DENIED.

The Clerk is further DIRECTED to enter FINAL JUDGMENT and terminate
the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT