United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
Steven S. Brown, Plaintiff,
Director Mohr, et al. Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER
MICHAEL R. BARRETT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge's
November 6, 2018 Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) recommending that Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and all remaining
pending motions be denied as moot. (Doc. 201).
parties were given proper notice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would
waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the
R&R in a timely manner. See United States v.
Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff filed
partial objections to the Magistrate Judge's R&R; and
sought additional time to supplement his objections. (Doc.
210). The Court granted Plaintiff's requests for
additional time (Docs. 208, 216), but Plaintiff did not file
a supplement to his objections.
is an inmate currently housed at the Mansfield Correctional
Institution. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se.
Plaintiff brings constitutional claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The Magistrate Judge set forth the factual and
procedural background, and therefore the same will not be
fifty-three pages of objections, Plaintiff sets forth a
lengthy history of his incarceration. However, as the
Magistrate Judge explained, Plaintiff's claims in this
action are limited to the conditions of confinement and
incidents which allegedly occurred when Plaintiff was housed
at Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (“SOCF”).
(Doc. 201, PAGEID# 2050).
objections to a magistrate judge's report and
recommendation are received on a dispositive matter, the
assigned district judge “must determine de
novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition
that has been properly objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(3). After review, the district judge “may accept,
reject, or modify the recommended decision; receive further
evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.” Id.; see also 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege: (1) the plaintiff was deprived of a right secured by
the Constitution or laws of the United States; and (2) that
the deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of
law. Webb v. United States, 789 F.3d 647, 659 (6th
Cir. 2015) (citing Marcilis v. Twp. of Redford, 693
F.3d 589, 595 (6th Cir. 2012)).
brings a claim pursuant to the Eighth Amendment, which
prohibits the imposition of “cruel and unusual
punishments” upon prisoners. U.S. Const. amend. VIII.
Plaintiff also brings a claim of retaliation under the First
Amendment, which requires a prisoner to prove that “(1)
he engaged in protected conduct, (2) the defendant took an
adverse action that is capable of deterring a person of
‘ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that
conduct,' and (3) ‘the adverse action was motivated
at least in part by the [prisoner's] protected
conduct.'” Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468,
472 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Thaddeus-X v. Blatter,
175 F.3d 378, 394, 398 (6th Cir.1999) (en banc)). The Court
will now address these claims as they relate to each of the
alleges that on January 18, 2011, during his transfer from
Lucasville Correctional Institution, Defendant Riggs punched
him in the stomach while he was handcuffed. However, as the
Magistrate Judge explained, Plaintiff grieved the issue, and
after an investigation, the Chief Inspector denied the
grievance. In support of his claim, Plaintiff relies on his
own declaration and a statement of an inmate who was present
that day. This inmate “assumed” Plaintiff had
been struck because Plaintiff was laying on the bus floor,
that but did not see any staff member strike Plaintiff.
However, as the Magistrate Judge explained, the five other
inmates who were present were interviewed and did not witness
any force being used against Plaintiff. In addition, when
Plaintiff was examined by medical personnel when he arrived
at Ross Correctional Institution, Plaintiff denied any
medical issues. The Court finds that there is no error in the
Magistrate Judge's conclusion that viewing this evidence
in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, there is no genuine
issue of material fact regarding the objective and subjective
component of his Eighth Amendment claim.
Defendants Perdas, Bell, Kelly, Ison and
Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff failed to establish
an Eighth Amendment claim of excessive force against these
Defendants. When assessing a claim of excessive force, the
core judicial inquiry is “whether force was applied in
a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or
maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson
v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992). Plaintiff also
claims that these Defendants retaliated against him in