# Person v. Newland

> District Court, N.D. Ohio · October 24, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10367667

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** October 24, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10367667

## Opinion text

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL T. PERSON, ) CASE NO. 4:18CV2154
)
Plaintiff, )
) JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
v. )
)
DOCTOR NEWLAND, et al., ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
) ORDER
Defendants. ) [Resolving ECF Nos. 13, 16-2]

Pending before the Court are Defendant Dr. Airaldi’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13)
and Defendant Dr. Newland’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16-2). Plaintiff responded (ECF No.
15) and only Defendant Dr. Airaldi replied (ECF No. 17). For the reasons that follow, the Court
dismisses Plaintiff's claims against remaining Defendants Doctor Airaldi and Doctor Newland.
I. Background
Pro se Plaintiff Michael T. Person, a state prisoner incarcerated in the Northeast Ohio
Correctional Center, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Director of the Ohio Department
of Rehabilitation and Correction Gary Mohr, former state Attorney General Mike DeWine,
former Governor John Kasich, Doctor Newland, Doctor Airaldi, Doctor “D.,” Doctor Rhegetty,
Chief Inspector Roger Wilson, and Inspector Mona Parks. ECF No. 1. The Court, under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e), dismissed Plaintiff's claims against all Defendants except for Defendants
Doctor Airaldi and Doctor Newland. ECF No. 8. Defendants Airaldi and Newland subsequently
moved to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim.

(4:18CV2154)

Plaintiff alleges that, on June 9, 2016, he complained to Doctors Airaldi and Newland of
internal bleeding and injury to his stomach and intestines. ECF No. | at PageID #: 3. Plaintiff
claims that “both refused him treatment” and that as a result of denial of proper medical care, his
intestines became infected. /d. at PageID #: 3-4. A third doctor diagnosed his condition as
irreversible. Id at PageID #: 4. Plaintiff was transported to the hospital and underwent surgery to
remove his intestines. /d. Plaintiff was told that he would be required to wear an intestine bag
for the rest of his life. Jd.
I. Law & Analysis
On a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court considers the allegations within
the four corners of Plaintiff's complaint; it does not consider evidence in the record. The Court’s
review is no broader or narrower on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss than it is on initial
screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Nevertheless, the Court benefits from the parties’
briefing, and it may therefore reach a different conclusion on motion than on initial screening.
“The appropriate statute of limitations for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights actions arising in
Ohio is contained in Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2305.10, which requires that actions for bodily
injury be filed within two years after their accrual.” Browning v. Pendleton, 869 F.2d 989, 992
(6th Cir. 1989) (en banc). The “limitations period starts to run ‘when the plaintiff knows or has
reason to know of the injury which is the basis of his action.’” Kuhnle Bros., Inc. v. Cty. Of
Geauga, 103 F.3d 516, 520 (6" Cir. 1997) (quoting Sevier v. Turner, 742 F.2d 262, 273 (6th Cir.
1984), Plaintiff alleges that he complained to Defendants Airaldi and Newland of internal

(4:18CV2154)
bleeding and injury to his stomach and intestines on June 9, 2016, but that Defendants refused
him treatment. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 3. Plaintiff, however, did not file his complaint until
September 18, 2018, over three months after the statute of limitations on his claim had run.

Plaintiff alleges no other facts sufficient to state a cause of action against Defendants Airaldi or
Newland.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim
(ECF Nos. 13, 16-2) are granted. A separate dismissal Order shall issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

October 24, 2019 /s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Date Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10367667. Public record. Not legal advice.