Johnson v. Staff

Full title: ALONZO JOHNSON, Jr., Plaintiff, v. UNIT STAFF, ODRC MAJOR OF SECURITY…

Court: United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Sep 22, 2010

Civil Action 2:09-CV-794 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 22, 2010)

Opinion

Civil Action 2:09-CV-794.

September 22, 2010

ORDER

PETER ECONOMUS, District Judge

Plaintiff, a state inmate, alleges that a corrections officer at the Ross Correctional Institution assaulted him without justification.¹ In a Report and Recommendation issued on September 7, 2010, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended that the action be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) because plaintiff did not allege that the actual defendants named in the Complaint "at least implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in the" alleged misconduct. Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 6, at 2, citing Combs v. Wilkinson, 315 F.3d 548, 554 (6^th Cir. 2002). This matter is now before the Court on plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation. Objection, Doc. No. 8. The Court will consider the matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).

1 The claims arising out of the alleged assault were severed from other claims originally filed in the Western Division of this Court. See Order, Doc. No. 4.

As the Magistrate Judge noted, the Complaint names as defendants, not the corrections officer who allegedly assaulted plaintiff, but various supervisory officials at the Ross Correctional Institution and the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Also named as defendants are the "State Medical Board of Ohio," and "Attorney General Cordray." This Court agrees that the Complaint simply fails to allege that the individuals named as defendants actively engaged in or encouraged the assault about which plaintiff complains. Moreover, the State Medical Board of Ohio appears to be a state agency over which this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction by operation of the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989). Finally, the allege failure on the part of the Ohio Attorney General to respond to plaintiff's allegations does not give rise to a constitutional violation. See Poe v. Haydon, 853 F.2d 418, 429 (6^th Cir. 1988).

Plaintiff's Objection does not address the deficiencies identified by the Magistrate Judge. Rather, plaintiff engages in a rambling, nearly incomprehensible recounting of grievances over the years against public officials ranging from prosecuting authorities in Hamilton County to Congress. Plaintiff has offered no reason to conclude that the Report and Recommendation should be rejected.

The Report and Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED AND AFFIRMED. This action is hereby DISMISSED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter FINAL JUDGMENT.

Moreover, the Court concludes that an appeal from the judgment entered in this case would not be taken in good faith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.