Royster v. Mohr

4 Citing cases

  1. Sebestyen v. Gardner

    Civil Action 2:17-cv-550 (S.D. Ohio May. 12, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Rather, Plaintiff's ADA claim arises from his belief that he was not provided proper medical care in certain instances relating to his vision impairment. Such a claim ordinarily is not actionable under Title II of the ADA. Watson v. Mohr, No. 2:17-CV-457, 2017 WL 6383812, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 14, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:17-CV-457, 2018 WL 836484 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 13, 2018); see also Royster v. Mohr, No. 11-CV-1163, 2013 WL 827709, at *9 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 6, 2013), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:11-CV-1163, 2013 WL 2404065 (S.D. Ohio May 31, 2013) (citing Baldridge-El v. Gundy, No. 99-2387, 2000 WL 1721014, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov.8, 2000) ("medical treatment decisions, or alleged medical malpractice, cannot form the basis of a claim under the ADA"). Plaintiff's most serious allegation appears to be directed to Mrs. Popovich to the extent he states that she refused his admission to the "Blind Program" and somehow retaliated against him.

  2. Powell v. Bartlett Med. Clinic & Wellness Ctr.

    Civil Action 2:20-cv-02118 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 25, 2021)   Cited 9 times

    See, e.g., Bonds v. S. Health Partners, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-209-WOB, 2016 WL 1394528, at *6 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 6, 2016) (citing Carrion v. Wilkinson, 309 F. Supp. 2d 1007, 1016 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 10, 2004)) (holding ADA does not provide federal cause of action to challenge sufficiency of medical treatment of underlying disabilities); see alsoKensu v. Rapelje, No. 12-11877, 2015 WL 5302816, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 10, 2015) ("Defendant's conduct in response to Kensu's requests for dietary accommodation was medical treatment. The ADA does not provide relief for alleged incompetent treatment."); Royster v. Mohr, No. 11-CV-1163, 2013 WL 827709, at *9 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 6, 2013), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:11-CV-1163, 2013 WL 2404065 (S.D. Ohio May 31, 2013) (citing Baldridge-El v. Gundy, No. 99-2387, 2000 WL 1721014, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov.8, 2000) ("medical treatment decisions, or alleged medical malpractice, cannot form the basis of a claim under the ADA").

  3. Robinson v. Genesee Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't

    Case No. 16-cv-13805 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 2, 2017)   Cited 3 times

    See Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). See also Royster v. Mohr, No. 11-CV-1163, 2013 WL 827709, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 6, 2013), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:11-CV-1163, 2013 WL 2404065 (S.D. Ohio May 31, 2013) (collecting cases which support the proposition that service accepted at a former place of employment, "even if accepted by another individual, does not comport with due process because the defendant is not physically present at the location").

  4. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Electrolux Home Prod., Inc.

    CASE NO. 1:14 CV 329 (N.D. Ohio Jul. 19, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    A motion for judgment on the pleadings attacks the sufficiency of the pleadings and is evaluated under the same standard as a motion to dismiss. Royster v. Mohr, No. 11 CV 1163, 2013 WL 827709 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 6, 2013) (citing Amersbach v. City of Cleveland, 598 F.2d 1033, 1038 (6th Cir. 1979)). Thus, the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded material allegations of the plaintiff's complaint, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in plaintiff's favor.