From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Howard v. Montgomery Cnty. Jail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
Aug 13, 2018
Case No. 3:16-cv-517 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 13, 2018)

Summary

holding that a party named in the original complaint, but not named in the operative amended pleading, is no longer a party to the case and has, effectively, been dismissed as a party from the action

Summary of this case from Whorton v. Cognitians, LLC

Opinion

Case No. 3:16-cv-517

08-13-2018

JAMES J. HOWARD, Plaintiff, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants.


ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (DOC. 76); ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 71); GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOCS. 50, 52); DISMISSING THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. 49); AND TERMINATING THIS CASE

This civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is before the Court on the Objections (Doc. 76) filed by Plaintiff James J. Howard ("Howard") to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman's Report and Recommendation ("Report") (Doc. 71). Howard alleges that, while a pre-trial detainee in the Montgomery County Jail, the Defendants' deliberate indifference to his serious medical condition, i.e., diabetes, resulted in the amputation of the toes on his right foot. On February 20, 2018, with leave of Court, Howard filed a Second Amended Complaint for damages against Defendants Montgomery County, Ohio; Montgomery County Sheriff Phil Plummer; Naphcare, Inc.; Theresa Wallace, a Registered Nurse; and Valerie Beirise, a Nurse Practitioner.

This case was before Magistrate Judge Newman on two motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint: (1) a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 50) filed by Montgomery County and Sheriff Plummer (collectively, the "County Defendants"); and (2) a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 52) filed by Naphcare, Wallace, and Beirise (collectively, the "Naphcare Defendants"). After consideration of Defendants' supporting memoranda, Plaintiff's memoranda in opposition (Docs. 51, 60), and Defendants' replies (Docs. 53, 61), Magistrate Judge Newman entered his Report (Doc. 71) recommending that the Court grant both Motions to Dismiss and terminate this action. Howard filed Objections (Doc. 76) to the Report, and the County Defendants and Naphcare Defendants filed Responses (Docs. 77, 78) to the Objections. This matter is ripe for review.

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court finds that the Objections to the Report are not well-taken and are hereby OVERRULED. The Court therefore ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 71) in its entirety and rules as follows:

1. The County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 50) is GRANTED;

2. The Naphcare Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 52) is GRANTED;

3. Howard's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 49) is DISMISSED; and

4. This case is TERMINATED on the Court's docket.

DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Monday, August 13, 2018.

s/Thomas M. Rose

THOMAS M. ROSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Howard v. Montgomery Cnty. Jail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
Aug 13, 2018
Case No. 3:16-cv-517 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 13, 2018)

holding that a party named in the original complaint, but not named in the operative amended pleading, is no longer a party to the case and has, effectively, been dismissed as a party from the action

Summary of this case from Whorton v. Cognitians, LLC

holding that a party named in the original complaint, but not named in the operative amended pleading, is no longer a party to the case and has, effectively, been dismissed as a party from the action

Summary of this case from Whorton v. Cognitians, LLC
Case details for

Howard v. Montgomery Cnty. Jail

Case Details

Full title:JAMES J. HOWARD, Plaintiff, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

Date published: Aug 13, 2018

Citations

Case No. 3:16-cv-517 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 13, 2018)

Citing Cases

Whorton v. Cognitians, LLC

The original complaint filed by Plaintiff, pro se, named as Defendants the City and Cognitians, LLC. Doc. #4.…

Whorton v. Cognitians, LLC

Because pro se Plaintiff's original complaint is now a nullity, see Drake v. City of Detroit, Michigan, 266…