Bey v. Smith et al

Filing 20

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 10 Report and Recommendations in its entirety. Plaintiff may proceed on his claims against Defendants Smith and Davis in their individual capacities for violations of the First Amendments Establishment Clause and the Fourteenth Amendments Equal Protection Clause, conspiracy under § 1983, and state-law fraud. Plaintiffs remaining claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Algenon L Marbley on 10/25/2024. (cw)(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
JAMAL M. BEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
BLAIRE SMITH, and
MICHAEL DAVIS,
Defendants.

:
: Case No. 2:23-cv-02601
:
: Judge Algenon L. Marbley
:
: Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman
:
:
:
:

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter comes before this Court on Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman’s Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”) that this Court partially dismiss Plaintiff Jamal Bey’s claims
against Defendants Blaire Smith, Chaplain at the Marion Correctional Institution (“MCI”), and
Michael Davis, Religious Administrator at the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
(“ODRC”). (ECF No. 10).
Plaintiff, an inmate at MCI, alleges that he identifies as a Hebrew Israelite and brings this
pro se civil rights action based on the denial of his request for a kosher meal accommodation and
Defendants’ alleged conspiracy thereafter to deprive him of the opportunity to appeal the denial.
(See id. at 3–5). Seeking monetary damages, Plaintiff asserts claims under the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and fraud under Ohio state law. (Id.).
Reviewing Plaintiff’s allegations, Magistrate Judge Bowman recommended that the
following claims be dismissed with prejudice: (1) claims against Defendants in their official
capacities; (2) due process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment; (3) Section 1983 claims based
on ODRC policies; and (4) any claims Plaintiff seeks to bring “on behalf of other Hebrew Israelites

at the ODRC.” (Id. at 5-6).1 The R&R advised, however, that Plaintiff may proceed with his
individual-capacity claims—for violations of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, conspiracy under § 1983, and state-law fraud—
based on the denial of his May 2022 request for a religious meal accommodation. (Id. at 9).2
The parties were advised of their right to object to the R&R within fourteen (14) days and
of the rights they would waive by failing to do so. (Id. at 10–11). No party has objected, and the
time for filing such objections lapsed on February 21, 2024.
Accordingly, this Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10) in its
entirety. Plaintiff may proceed on his claims against Defendants Smith and Davis in their
individual capacities for violations of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, conspiracy under § 1983, and state-law fraud.
Plaintiff’s remaining claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________________
ALGENON L. MARBLEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: October 25, 2024

As explained in the R&R, the official capacity claims are barred because Defendants are immune from
suit under the Eleventh Amendment. (ECF No. 10, at 6–7). Any alleged violations of ODRC policy fall
outside the scope of § 1983 and are likewise not actionable. (Id. at 8). Because Plaintiff does not claim to
be an attorney, the R&R noted that he cannot bring claims on behalf of other inmates. (Id.). Finally,
dismissal of the due process claims was warranted based on Davismoore v. Davis, No. 1:18CV1468, 2019
WL 1558679 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 10, 2019). (See ECF No. 10, at 7–8). There, the court dismissed similar due
process claims brought by an inmate based on “the termination of [his] kosher meals or denial of his
subsequent applications to resume receiving kosher meals.” 2019 WL 1558679, *4. As to procedural due
process, the court explained that “[a] prisoner does not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in
receiving kosher meals.” Id. The substantive due process claim also failed because it “merely restates [the]
First Amendment [. . .] claim.” Id. at *5 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
1

2

Although Plaintiff may proceed with those claims at this juncture, the R&R emphasized that the
determination is only preliminary and not based on the merits of the claims. (See ECF No. 10, at 5 & n.2).

2