From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hairston v. Fultz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
May 28, 2019
Case No.2:18-cv-1253 (S.D. Ohio May. 28, 2019)

Summary

finding that Plaintiff had "failed to allege any facts upon which the Court could rely to conclude that his transfer [to another prison] constituted an adverse action for purposes of a First Amendment claim."

Summary of this case from Myers v. Leasure

Opinion

Case No.2:18-cv-1253

05-28-2019

RICO ISAIH HAIRSTON, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW FULTZ, et al., Defendants.


CHIEF JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura OPINION AND ORDER

On May 1, 2019, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 20) recommending that Plaintiff Rico Isaih Hairston ("Plaintiff) be permitted to proceed on his individual capacity First and Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant Andrew Fultz ("Defendant Fultz") for his alleged use of mace. In addition, the Report and Recommendation recommended that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Warden Smith ("Defendant Smith") be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). The Report and Recommendation advised the parties that failure to object within fourteen days would result in a waiver of review by a District Judge. The time for filing objections has passed, and no objections have been filed to the Report and Recommendation.

Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 20). Plaintiff is permitted to proceed on his individual capacity First and Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant Fultz. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Smith are DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 5-28-2019
DATE

/s/ _________

EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Hairston v. Fultz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
May 28, 2019
Case No.2:18-cv-1253 (S.D. Ohio May. 28, 2019)

finding that Plaintiff had "failed to allege any facts upon which the Court could rely to conclude that his transfer [to another prison] constituted an adverse action for purposes of a First Amendment claim."

Summary of this case from Myers v. Leasure
Case details for

Hairston v. Fultz

Case Details

Full title:RICO ISAIH HAIRSTON, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW FULTZ, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: May 28, 2019

Citations

Case No.2:18-cv-1253 (S.D. Ohio May. 28, 2019)

Citing Cases

Myers v. Leasure

The Undersigned concludes that the conduct reports and inter-prison unit transfer would not "deter a person…