Devore v. Mohr et al

Filing 5

ORDER denying 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; adopting Report and Recommendations re 4 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Judge James L. Graham on 6/20/2017. (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
James Devore,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:17-cv-408

Gary Mohr, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This is an action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 filed by plaintiff
James Devore, an Ohio pro se inmate incarcerated at the Belmont
Correctional Institution, against Director Gary Mohr and other
employees of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
Plaintiff’s claims stem from an altercation he had with another
inmate he suspected of stealing his property.

Plaintiff alleged

that he was placed in solitary confinement in retaliation for his
unwillingness to “snitch” on the other inmate, that defendants
failed to adequately investigate the altercation, that defendants
acted with deliberate indifference to his safety by failing to
repair the chair thrown at him by the other inmate, where a sharp
edge on the chair leg caused an injury to plaintiff’s hand.
Plaintiff also filed a motion to appoint counsel.
On May 26, 2017, the magistrate judge filed a report and
recommendation on the initial screen of plaintiff’s complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A, which requires the court, “in a civil
action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity
or officer or employee of a governmental entity,” to dismiss a
complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.

28

U.S.C.

§1915A(a)-(b)(1).

The

magistrate

judge

concluded that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, and recommended that this action be
dismissed and that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel be
denied.

See Doc. 4.

The report and recommendation specifically advised the parties
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 have the
District Judge review the Report and Recommendation de novo, and
also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of
the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation.”
4, p. 8.

Doc.

The time period for filing objections to the report and

recommendation has expired, and no objections to the report and
recommendation have been filed.
The court agrees with the report and recommendation (Doc. 4),
and it is hereby adopted. This action is hereby dismissed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because plaintiff’s complaint fails
to state a claim for which relief may be granted.
motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 2) is denied.

Plaintiff’s
The clerk

shall enter judgement dismissing this case.

Date: June 20, 2017

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

2