The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
DERRICK SWEETING, Case No. 1:20-cv-290
Plaintiff,
Dlott, J.
vs Litkovitz, M.J.
WARDEN RICHARD REPORT AND
ERDOS, et al., RECOMMENDATION
Defendants.
Plaintiff has filed a pro se prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983 in this
Court. On April 23, 2020, the undersigned issued an Order and Report and Recommendation,
permitting plaintiff to proceed with his Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against
defendant Officer Welch Wes. (Doc. 5). The undersigned recommended that plaintiff’s
complaint be dismissed as to defendants Erdos, Mahlman, Greene, and Hanyida for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Specifically, plaintiff failed to state a viable
claim to the extent that he sought to hold these defendants liable in connection with his Rules
Infraction Board proceedings or the grievance process. Furthermore, it was recommended that
his failure to protect claims against these defendants be dismissed because plaintiff failed to
allege facts suggesting that any defendant was aware that defendant Wes presented a substantial
risk of harm to plaintiff much less that any defendant was deliberately indifferent to his safety.
(Id. at PageID 51–54).
Plaintiff has now filed a motion to amend, as well as memoranda of law and objections.
(Doc. 6–9). In plaintiff’s filings, plaintiff reasserts his claims against all defendants named in
the original complaint. Plaintiff argues that “the plaintiff wrote [defendants] informal
complaint, grievance, appeal grievance about the excessive force claim against Officer Welch
Wes they responsible because they were aware and they all responded.” (See Doc. 9 at PageID
76). However, as noted in the April 23, 2020 Report and Recommendation, prison officials
whose only roles “involved their denial of administrative grievances and their failure to remedy
the alleged [unconstitutional behavior” cannot be liable under § 1983 Shehee v. Luttrell, 199
F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999). Furthermore, plaintiff has not alleged any additional facts that
would enable the Court to reasonably conclude that any named defendant was aware that
defendant Wes presented a risk of harm to plaintiff prior to the alleged incident or were
otherwise deliberately indifferent to his safety.
The amended complaint does not cure the deficiencies set forth in the Court’s April 23,
2020 Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint
should be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT plaintiff’s motion to amend the
complaint (Doc. 7) be DENIED.
Date: 5/15/2020 t% x Luthe ov
Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
DERRICK SWEETING, Case No. 1:20-cv-290
Plaintiff,
Dlott, J.
vs Litkovitz, M.J.
WARDEN RICHARD
ERDOS, et al.,
Defendants.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after
being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely
motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) of the
R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the
objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN DAYS after
being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make objections in accordance with this
procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States
v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).