Johnson v. Muskingum Co.

Full title: Jeffery A. Johnson, Plaintiff, v. Muskingum Co. Sheriff's Dept., et al.…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Date published: Sep 17, 2014

Case No. 2:13-cv-25 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 17, 2014)

Opinion

Case No. 2:13-cv-25

09-17-2014

Jeffery A. Johnson, Plaintiff, v. Muskingum Co. Sheriff's Dept., et al., Defendants.

Judge Michael H. Watson

OPINION AND ORDER

On May 13, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge King issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending the Court grant Defendant Muskingum County Defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 68. ECF No. 78. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, objects. ECF No. 82.

As an initial matter, Plaintiff includes in his objection a motion to amend his Complaint, but the Magistrate Judge has already denied the request as untimely and without merit. Opinion and Order 4-5, ECF No. 84.

Plaintiff's remaining substantive objection is as follows:

Defendants have failed to deny the 35lbs weight loss suffered by Plaintiff. Or the pain and suffering inflicted on him by his inability to swallow food and their deliberate indifference. Nor the reason his 150 times he actively sought medical attention and treatment. The bleeding and swelling of his throat, without giving consideration to Boerhaaue's Syndrome, Defendants were well aware of Plaintiff's condition and injuries, but denied personally proper and complete medical care. A scheduled CAT scan would have shown damage to the soft tissue of the throat.

Objection 2, ECF No. 82. (emphasis in original).

Plaintiff appears to be objecting to the Magistrate Judge's finding that Plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of a serious medical need and Defendants' deliberate indifference to that need. However, Plaintiff does not offer any evidence to substantiate his assertions. As the Magistrate Judge noted, "Plaintiff's pro se status does not relieve him of this obligation." R&R 8, ECF No. 78 (citing cases). Accordingly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that Defendants' were not deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections and ADOPTS the R&R. The Clerk shall remove ECF No. 78 from The Civil Justice Reform Act Motions Report.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ _______

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT