Johnson v. Chambers-Smith

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

ALFRED A. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, Civil Action 2:22-cv-4179 v. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr. ANNETTE CHAMBERS-SMITH, ODRC DIRECTOR, et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court for consideration of a Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge on January 3, 2023 (ECF No. 26), to which Plaintiff filed an Objection (ECF No. 23), a Motion to Compel Evidence to Be Submitted to the Court (ECF No. 24), and a Request to Supplement the Record (ECF No. 35). This Court has made “a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Here, in its de novo review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge issued a well- reasoned, thorough, and legally correct Report and Recommendation that is undisturbed by Plaintiff’s Objection, Motion to Compel, and/or his Request to Supplement. Therefore, the Court hereby: 1. ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 20); 2. OVERRULES Plaintiff ‘s Objection (ECF No. 23); 3. DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Evidence (ECF No. 24); 4. SEVERS the claims in the First Motion against Defendant Sable, Murphy, and the BECI Medical Department and DISMISS them without prejudice; 5. DENIES the Second Motion (ECF No. 9) and the Third Motion (ECF No. 12) to Amend/Supplement as these amendments would be futile, because they would result in misjoinder and/or because the allegations fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted;

6. SEVERS the claim in the Complaint (ECF No. 14) against Defendant Rizzo and DISMISSES it without prejudice;

7. DISMISSES all the remaining claims in the Complaint against Defendants Chambers-Smith, Gray, Scott, Moore, Haley, Henry, Taylor, Matesick, and the ODRC, all under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2);

8. FINDS this case is a strike for purposes of the three strikes provision of the PLRA, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and

9. CERTIFIES pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that, for the reasons discussed above, an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendations would not be taken in good faith, and therefore, deny Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997).

The Clerk is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants and CLOSE this case. IT IS SO ORDERED.

9/18/2023 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE