The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DAVID PAUL ROWBOTHAM, :
:
Plaintiff, : Case No. 2:22-cv-2459
:
v. : Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley
:
SHERIFF DAVID LUCAS, et al., : Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
:
Defendants. :
OPINION & ORDER
This case is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,
recommending dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 12) and Plaintiff’s Objections thereto
(ECF Nos. 13). For the following reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs’ Objections,
ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Court
further DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 15) and Plaintiff’s
Motion for service copies (ECF No. 3).
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, an Ohio state inmate proceeding without the assistance of counsel, brings this
action against Defendants, Sheriff David Lucas and Sergeant Dewey Morgan of the Belmont
County Sheriff’s Office, alleging that Defendants interfered with various rights related to access
to courts, religion, medical treatment, conditions of confinement, and administrative grievances.
(Am. Compl., ECF No. 11.)
The Magistrate Judge first granted Plaintiff’s motions for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (ECF No. 9.) The Magistrate Judge then recommended
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be dismissed because Plaintiffs’ allegations related to access to
courts, freedom of religion, deliberate indifference to medical needs, conditions of confinement,
and due process failed to state a claim for violations of the First, Eighth, or Fourteenth
Amendments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 12.)
Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 13.)
Plaintiff’s objections provide some additional factual detail underlying his claims, but largely
repeat the allegations in his Amended Complaint.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When 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); see also 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). After review, the district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the
recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the Magistrate Judge
with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Because Defendant
has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, the Court reviews the recommended
disposition de novo.
When a Plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, a court is permitted to dismiss any portion of
a complaint that “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring a court to conduct a screening of
“a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity . . . [to] identify cognizable claims or dismiss the
complaint, or any portion of the complaint [that is] frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted”). While detailed factual allegations are not necessary at the
pleading stage, mere “labels and conclusions” are insufficient to state a proper claim. Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007). Pro se complaints are to be construed liberally, but
“basic pleading essentials” still are required. Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989).
Thus, to survive screening, a complaint must contain sufficient facts which, if accepted as true,
would plausibly state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
III. LAW & ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s objections contain additional factual detail underlying his claims, but this
additional factual detail does not remedy the deficiencies identified by the Magistrate Judge in
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Rather, Plaintiff’s objections largely repeat the same arguments
and allegations contained in his Amended Complaint. Those arguments and allegations were
already considered and rejected by the Magistrate Judge. Namely, Plaintiff has failed to allege an
injury to support his First Amendment claims for access to courts or freedom of religion, Plaintiff
has failed to allege any sufficiently serious medical needs or extreme deprivations to sustain an
Eighth Amendment medical indifference or conditions of confinement claim, and Plaintiff has
failed to allege a property or liberty interest to sustain a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim.
Thus, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation,
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint must be dismissed.
Plaintiff has also filed a “Motion to Update of Plaintiff Position” (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff
states he is once again in the custody of Belmont County Jail and complains of many of the same
conditions of confinement as are mentioned in his Amended Complaint. (Id.) Plaintiff also states,
however, that he has since been “placed in isolation by Defendants after inmates have continuously
threatened physical bodily harm and death to Plaintiff,” and that he was “put in segregated housing
where I was forced to sign a paper that due to constant threats, I fear for my life.” (Id. at 2.) He
closes by saying, “Please help! I think they are going to kill me.” (Id. at 3.)
Although it is unclear exactly what relief Plaintiff is requesting, it appears that he seeks
some kind of injunctive relief to address concerns about his safety. Plaintiff's allegations establish
that he has informed Jail officials about these concerns, however, and he has already been placed
in protective custody to prevent injury from other inmates. Accordingly, no further relief from the
Court is necessary at this juncture. The Court will, therefore, deny Plaintiffs Motion for injunctive
relief as moot. (ECF No. 15.)
Finally, Plaintiff has also requested that the Clerk make any necessary service copies of his
Complaint. (ECF No. 3.) Because the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, the Court
will DENY this Motion as MOOT.
IV. DISPOSITION
In sum, Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation do
not remedy the deficiencies identified therein. Because Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Plaintiff's Objections (ECF No. 13) are
OVERRULED, and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 12) is
ADOPTED. Further, Plaintiffs Motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 15) and Plaintiff's Motion
for service copies (ECF No. 3) are DENIED AS MOOT. This case is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
—=
ALGENONL. MARB
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: September 21, 2022