Whitfield v. Runyan et al.

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 10 - The Court DISMISSES with prejudice plaintiff's complaint, with the exception of his first, second, fifth, sixth, and ninth group of claims against the individual defendants named in those claims in their individual capacities and the Montgomery County Board of Commissioners. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 3/7/2025. (srb)(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
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

Caleb Whitfield,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:24-cv-252

v.
District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Correction Officer Runyan, et al.,

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

Defendants.

__________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. 10)
__________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff, an inmate currently at the Toledo Correctional Institution, in Toledo, Ohio,
has brought a pro se civil rights action for alleged violations of his rights while he was a
pretrial detainee at the Montgomery County Jail in Dayton, Ohio. Upon a sua sponte review
of the complaint to determine whether the complaint or any portion of it should be dismissed
because it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief, see Prison
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 § 804, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); § 805, 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b), Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz recommended that the Court:

1

1. DISMISS with prejudice plaintiff’s complaint, with the
exception of his first, second, fifth, sixth, and ninth group of
claims against the individual defendants named in those claims
in their individual capacities and the [Montgomery County
Board of Commissioners]. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B);
1915A(b).
2. The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) that …
an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and
Recommendation would not be taken in good faith. See
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997).
(See Doc. 10, PageID 12.) Despite an extension from the Court (Doc. 14), the Report and
Recommendation remains unopposed.
The Court has reviewed the findings of the Magistrate Judge. The Court has also
considered the objections filed by Plaintiff in Whitfield v. Evers, 3:24-cv-244, Doc. 9. The
Court notes that Plaintiff cannot establish a Section 1983 case based on alleged violations of
a jail manual, policies or contracts. Section 1983 protects plaintiffs from constitutional
violations, not violations of state laws, departmental regulations, policies, rules or practices.
Scott v. Edinburg, 346 F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir. 2003).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), this Court has made a de
novo review of the record in this case. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court
ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 10) in its entirety. The Court
DISMISSES with prejudice plaintiff’s complaint, with the exception of his first, second,
fifth, sixth, and ninth group of claims against the individual defendants named in those
claims in their individual capacities and the Montgomery County Board of Commissioners.
The Court CERTIFIES pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) that an appeal of this Order
would not be taken in good faith. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir.
1997).
2

DONE and ORDERED this Friday, March 7, 2025.

s/Thomas M. Rose
__________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3