The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
JERMEAL WHITE, : Case No. 1:20-cv-101
:
Plaintiff, : Judge Timothy S. Black
:
vs. : Magistrate Judge Stephanie K.
: Bowman
RONALD ERDOS, et al., :
:
Defendants. :
DECISION AND ENTRY
ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 61)
AND TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT
This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United
States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Pursuant to such
reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on
February 16, 2022, submitted a Report and Recommendations (“R&R”). (Doc. 61).
Plaintiff Jermeal White (“White”) timely filed objections. (Doc. 62).
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has
reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all
of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court finds that the
R&R is adopted, White’s objections are overruled, and Defendants are entitled to
summary judgment. The Court looks at White’s two arguments in turn.
White’s first objection is that the Magistrate Judge misidentified a correctional
officer in a section of the R&R titled “Applicable Law.” (See Doc. 62 at PageID# 566).
The reference to “officer Parish” does appear to be a scrivener’s error. (Doc. 61 at 6).
But this is just an introductory sentence to a section regarding the applicable law. (Id.).
White does not dispute that the applicable law is correct. Upon the Court’s own review,
the Court determines that the facts and law are correctly applied to the named
Defendants. Thus, this typographical error does not affect the Magistrate Judge’s learned
analysis of the issues or the ultimate disposition of the case. Accordingly, this objection
is noted but not meaningful. It will be overruled.
In his second objection, White states he did in fact properly cite to the record in
opposing the summary judgment motion. (Doc. 62 at PageID## 566-567). The Court has
reviewed White’s opposition and agrees with the Magistrate Judge that White has not
backed up his arguments with citations to the record. (Doc. 59). The opposition is just
White’s version of the events with no references or citations. (Id.).
Construing White’s opposition and second objection in a very generous light, the
Court could infer that a large part of White’s opposition is a seeming description of what
White believes the video footage of the incident shows—in other words, his opposition
indirectly refers to something in the record.1 Alas, for White, the Magistrate Judge
reviewed the video and found that it revealed that excessive force was not used on White.
(Doc. 61 at 8). Because the Magistrate Judge did review the video evidence in the record
and found that it did not support White’s claims or raise a genuine dispute of fact,
1 The Magistrate Judge ordered that Plaintiff be allowed to review video of the footage. (See
Doc. 57). Defendants then submitted the video footage into the record. (See Doc. 61 at 8).
White’s second objection is not well-taken.2
The Court further notes that White, in his objections, seemingly takes no issue
with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Defendants are entitled to qualified
immunity. (Doc. 61 at 13). To prevail over a qualified immunity defense, White would
have the burden of proof to demonstrate Defendants had violated a clearly established
constitutional right. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S. Ct. 2727, 2738
(1982). White has made no real attempt to meet this burden. Taking White’s rendition of
the facts as illustrated by the video footage as true, the Court nonetheless finds that
Defendants are entitled to summary judgment, as the Magistrate Judge properly
recommends.
Accordingly:
1. The Report and Recommendations (Doc. 61) is hereby ADOPTED;
2. Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 62) are OVERRULED; and
3. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 50) is GRANTED. The
Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly whereupon this case is
TERMINATED from the docket of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 3/29/2022 s/Timothy S. Black
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge
2 In an elaboration of his second objection, White again attempts to characterize the video
footage. (Doc. 62 at PageID## 567-57). This is a retread of failed arguments already made
rather than a proper objection to the R&R.