Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Logan v. Emam

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

April 11, 2017

Jerry E. Logan, Plaintiff,
v.
Hany A. Emam, et al., Defendants.

          EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR., CHIEF JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER

          TERENCE P. KEMP, United States Magistrate Judge

         This is a prisoner civil rights case involving a claim for Eighth Amendment violations. This matter is now before the Court on a number of motions filed by plaintiff Jerry E. Logan: Motion for Preliminary Pretrial Scheduling Order (Doc. 19); Motion for Leave to Supplement (Doc. 21); Motion to Correct the Records (Doc. 23); Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 24); Motion for Release of Radiology Reports (Doc. 28); and Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 30). The Court will divide them into non-dispositive motions and dispositive motions, and, with one exception, will either deny or recommend denial of all of them.

         I. Non-dispositive Motions

         A. Motion for Preliminary Pretrial Scheduling Order

         Mr. Logan has moved for a scheduling order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b). Because the Court issued a Scheduling Order on August 31, 2016, this motion will be denied as moot.

         B. Motion for Leave to Supplement Exhibit

         Mr. Logan has moved to supplement the record with a letter from the Ohio State Dental Board (“OSDB”) relating to his complaint against Dr. Claire Towning, one of the defendants in this case. It appears he wishes to add it as a supplement to the complaint. Defendants have not opposed the motion. Therefore, it will be granted.

         C. Motion to Correct the Records

         Without providing specific examples or details, Mr. Logan has moved to challenge the accuracy of some of the medical records that have been produced in relation to his case, and states that he was “under duress” when required to sign certain unidentified documents. The defendants oppose the motion based on lack of clarity. Mr. Logan's reply is also quite vague, and appears to refer to certain contents of the medical records which he disputes. Essentially, it appears that Mr. Logan's motion seeks the Court to resolve factual issues about these documents. That is a potential issue for trial and is therefore not appropriate at this point in the case. Mr. Logan will have the opportunity in the course of the litigation to provide evidence and advance his arguments with respect to any factual disputes. For this reason, the motion will be denied.

         D. Motion for Release of Radiology Reports

         Mr. Logan has also moved for “authorization for the release of radiology reports” from an x-ray taken on January 30, 2017 at Chillicothe Correctional Institution. To the extent that he seeks the document through discovery, as provided under Fed.R.Civ.P. 34, Mr. Logan must serve a written request on the Defendants asking for the document. If it is not produced, Mr. Logan may file a motion asking the Court to become involved, but it does not appear that the matter has progressed to that point. Because his motion is premature and not supported by any evidence that he has asked Defendants for the x-ray and that they have refused to produce it, this motion will be denied.

         II. Dispositive Motions

         A. Motion for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.