Castile v. Franklin County Sheriff

Filing 6

ORDER ADOPTING and AFFIRMING the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 3 in that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. Signed by Judge George C. Smith on 5/10/18. (sem)(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
ISAAC J. CASTILE, III,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No.: 2:18-cv-226
JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH
Magistrate Judge Jolson

FRANKLIN COUNTY SHERIFF, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
On March 29, 2018, the United States Magistrate Judge issued an Order and Initial
Screen Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis be granted and that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a
claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. (See Report and Recommendation,
Doc. 3).
The parties were advised of their right to object to the Order and Initial Screen Report
and Recommendation. This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objections to the Order
and Initial Screen Report and Recommendation. (See Doc. 4). The Court will consider the
matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
In his objections, Plaintiff asserts that his claims should not be barred by the statute of
limitations based on the Court’s inherent authority to right a wrong and the power to award
appropriate relief. However, Plaintiff has failed to assert how the Magistrate Judge’s
conclusions were incorrect. The Court has carefully reviewed this matter and agrees with the
findings of the Magistrate Judge. Despite all the legal arguments cited by Plaintiff regarding the

Court’s authority, the Court must still abide by the statute of limitations. The Court agrees that
Plaintiff’s claims regarding events that occurred before March 12, 2016 are time barred.
Additionally, Plaintiff argues that his claims should not be dismissed for failure to state a
claim because he is disabled and the tolling provisions apply. He does concede that he cannot
get a doctor to independently dispute Defendants’ claims that they weren’t negligent. The Court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s findings that Plaintiff’s allegations are mere disagreements
and second guessing the medication professionals judgment and do not set forth a viable Eighth
Amendment claim. Therefore, the extent Plaintiff’s claims were timely; they are dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above and as set forth in detail in the Order and Initial
Screen Report and Recommendation, this Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit
and are hereby OVERRULED.
The Order and Initial Screen Report and Recommendation, Document 3, is ADOPTED
and AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.
The Clerk shall remove Documents 3 and 4 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