The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER B. COLEMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 2:20-cv-218
v. JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
CAPTAIN BURGHY, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of a Report and Recommendation issued
by the Magistrate Judge on April 8, 2021 (ECF No. 35) and to address pro se Plaintiffs’ Objections
(ECF No. 36). For the reasons stated herein, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs’ Objections (ECF
No. 36), and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 35).
I.
Plaintiffs Christopher Brian Coleman (Coleman) and J’Kuan Maleek Wells (Wells)
(collectively Plaintiffs), brought suit against several Defendants who work at Plaintiffs’
correctional institution, alleging violations of the Eight Amendment. Plaintiffs claim that
Defendants subjected them to indirect exposure to mace in order to obtain a confession about who
was talking during quiet hours. Defendants deny this, and state that the incident in question
involved one of the Defendants passing gas. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing
that the evidence, including video evidence, showed that Plaintiffs’ allegations could not have been
true. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, reporting that the evidence was
one sided and recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ motion. Plaintiffs object on three
grounds. First, Plaintiffs object to the consideration of the video evidence. (Objection at 4, ECF
No. 36). Second, Plaintiffs object to the Magistrate Judge’s report on qualified immunity. (Id. at
6). Third, Plaintiffs object to the denial of appointed counsel. (Id. at 7).
II.
If a party objects within the allotted time to a report and recommendation, 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) provides that a district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of
the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which the objection is made. The
district court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the magistrate.”
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
The Court may therefore grant a motion for summary judgment if the nonmoving party who has
the burden of proof at trial fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an
element that is essential to that party’s case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
The “party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing
the district court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions” of the record which
demonstrate “the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. The
burden then shifts to the nonmoving party who “must set forth specific facts showing that there is
a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986) (quoting Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(e)). “The evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences
are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. at 255 (citing Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158–
59 (1970)).
A genuine issue of material fact exists “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. at 248. Consequently, the central issue is “whether
the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so
one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Hamad v. Woodcrest Condo. Ass’n.,
328 F.3d 224, 234–35 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251–52). A dispute of
material fact is not “genuine” where the non-movant’s story is “blatantly contradicted by the
record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it . . . .” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).
III.
Plaintiffs’ first objection to the Report and Recommendation is that the Magistrate Judge
gave too much weight to the video evidence. (ECF No. 36 at 4–5). The video evidence shows the
hallway outside the open door of the room where the alleged incident took place. None of the
parties involved showed signs of mace exposure when they were in the hallway. According to
Plaintiffs, this is because the mace exposure was indirect. However, having reviewed the footage,
the Court finds that the actions and reactions of the parties caught on video are not consistent even
with indirect exposure to mace. Accordingly, this objection is OVERRULED.
Plaintiffs’ second objection concerns qualified immunity. (Id. at 6). This objection relies
on the Court sustaining Plaintiffs’ first objection, which this Court has not done. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs’ second objection is also OVERRULED.
Third, Plaintiffs object to the denial of appointed counsel. (Id. at 7). This objection
does not concern the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, but instead concerns the
Magistrate Judge’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motion to appoint counsel. (Order, ECF No. 21). The
Magistrate Judge issued that order on July 24, 2020. (Id.) Non-dispositive orders by the Magistrate
Judge are only reconsidered where a plaintiff has shown that the order is “clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Plaintiffs have not so shown, and the Court does not
so find. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s third objection is also OVERRULED.
IV.
For the reasons stated above, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs’ objections (ECF No. 36),
and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 35). For the
reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 30). The Clerk is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8/30/2021 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE