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.

Alford v. Mohr

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

July 10, 2019

BRIAN KEITH ALFORD, Plaintiff,
v.
GARY MOHR, et al, Defendants.

          Chelsey M. Vascura Magistrate Judge.

          OPINON AND ORDER

          EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. CHIEF JUDGE.

         Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Brian Keith Alford's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 4). For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs Objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4) are OVERRULED; the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 3) is ADOPTED; Plaintiffs claims against the staff members of the London Correctional Institution and the Toledo Correctional Institution are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) is DENIED.

         I.

         Plaintiff Brian Keith Alford ("Plaintiff") is currently an inmate in an Ohio state penitentiary and is proceeding without the assistance of counsel. (See generally Compl. [ECF No. 1-1]; see also IFP Mot. [ECF No. 1]). Plaintiffs Complaint alleges violations of Title 42, United States Code, Sections 1983 and 1985, against twenty-eight (28) named Defendants, including: Ohio Department of Rehabilitations and Correction ("ODRC") and Adult Parole Authority ("APA") officials (collectively "APA Defendants"); London Correctional Institution ("LCI") staff members ("LCI Defendants"); and Toledo Correctional Institution ("TCI") staff members ("TCI Defendants"). (See generally id).

         Plaintiffs Complaint appears to allege different claims against the three defendant groups. (See generally id). Plaintiff alleges that the LCI Defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at LCI; more specifically Plaintiff alleges:

1) Defendant Peterman prohibited Plaintiff from making legal phone calls and phone calls to his dying mother, (id. ¶ 40);
2) Defendant Peterman ordered Defendant Salyers to file a false conduct report against Plaintiff, (id);
3) Defendants Peterman and Salyers constructed a second false report against Plaintiff, (id);
4) During an interview following Plaintiffs reporting of Defendants Peterman and Salyers to the Prison Rape Elimination Act ("PREA") Tips Line, Defendants Crissler and Westfall threatened Plaintiff for reporting Defendants Peterman and Salyers, (id);
5) Defendants Noble, Justus, Parrish, Brann, and Witrrup "failed to correct.. . their subordinates[']" constitutional violations after being given notice of such violations, (id);
6) Prior to Plaintiffs rules infraction board ("RIB") hearing, Defendants Baker and Webb informed Plaintiff that "he would be found guilty" regardless of the evidence Plaintiff presented, and Plaintiff was denied due process at this hearing, (id ¶ 41); 7) Defendant Baker's report of the RIB hearing fails to note Plaintiffs request that an inmate testify, which was denied, (see Id. ¶ 41, 42);
8) While In Limited Privilege Housing ("LPH"), Plaintiff was discriminated against as he was denied "adequate recreation time, [was] forced to house in cells that did not provide adequate cooling during extreme summer temperatures . .. [, ]" (id. ¶ 42);
9) Defendants Baker and Webb took the actions discussed supra to retaliate against Plaintiff for the exercise of his First Amendment rights, and Defendants Mohr, Wittrup, Noble, Parrish, Peterman, and Brann "implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly" acquiesced such retaliation, (id.),
10) Upon transfer from LCI to Southern Ohio Correctional Facility ("SOCF") Defendant Tabitha Killian, [1] the mailroom supervisor at LCI, or an unnamed transport officer failed to ship Plaintiffs legal documents out of LCI, (id. ¶ 43); and
11) Defendant Decarlo Blackwell, [2] the Inspector at LCI, Defendant Mohr, and Defendant Noble allowed for the procedural errors which led to the mishandling and failing to transport Plaintiffs legal documents to SOCF. (See Id. ¶ 44).

         Plaintiff also alleges that the TCI Defendants violated his constitutional rights while he resided at TCI. As to the TCI Defendants, Plaintiff alleges that:

1) Human waste was found in a dishwasher at TCI, and that this is the fourth time human waste was found in a food service area, (id. ¶ 52); and
2) Defendant De La Cruz, the Chief Medical Examiner at TCI, failed to treat Plaintiffs Hepatitis C and the symptoms associated with the disease, (id. ¶¶ 51, 56).

         Finally, Plaintiff alleges that the APA Defendants violated the United States Constitution. ...


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.