Opinion
Case No. 2:10-cv-493
01-15-2014
WILLIAM L RIDENOUR, et al. Plaintiffs, v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, et al. Defendants.
Judge Peter C. Economus
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging exposure to friable asbestos at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution. This matter is before the Court on Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. (Dkt. 126.) Defendants assert that such claims were adjudicated pursuant to the settlement of a class action in this Court, Smith v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, No. 2:08-cv-15 (the "Smith case"). In a Report and Recommendation dated October 4, 2013, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were adjudicated and dismissed with prejudice in the Smith case and recommended that such claims be dismissed in this case. (Dkt. 147.)
Plaintiffs objected, arguing that the Smith Court "did not dismiss the declaratory relief claims because those claims did not exist in the Amended Complaint that the court ultimately based the settlement agreement on." (Dkt. 151 at 3.) As Defendants point out in their response (dkt. 153), this is incorrect. The Smith dismissal was based on the First Amended Complaint filed on November 11, 2008, which seeks both declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. (Smith case, dkt. 18 at ¶¶ 98-101, Prayer for Relief ¶¶ 3-5.) The Magistrate Judge correctly determined that Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are the same as the claims in Smith that were dismissed with prejudice.
For the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court therefore GRANTS Defendants' motion (dkt. 126), ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (dkt. 147), and OVERRULES Plaintiffs' objections (dkt. 151). Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are hereby DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE