Baker v. Kaye et al
Filing
19
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge George C Smith on 10-9-13. (ga)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
SHANE BAKER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No.: 2:13-cv-0034
JUDGE SMITH
Magistrate Judge King
JOEL E. KAYE, M.D., et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
On July 23, 2013, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendants Joel E. Kaye, M.D., Charles H. Muncrief, D.O., and S. Douglas Haas,
M.D., be dismissed without prejudice of insufficiency of process, that all claims against
Defendants Mary Lawrence and Mary Roush be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted, and that Plaintiff’s state law claims against all
Defendants for violation of O.A.C. § 5120:1-8-19, O.A.C. § 5120:1-8-09, and O.R.C. § 5120.01
be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. It is
further recommended that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is denied as to Plaintiff’s federal
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims of medical negligence against Defendants
John Gardner and Dr. Andrew Eddy. (See Report and Recommendation, Doc.17). The parties
were advised of their right to object to the Report and Recommendation. This matter is now
before the Court on Plaintiff Shane Baker’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation. (See
Doc. 18). The Court will consider the matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(3).
The objections present the same issues presented to and considered by the Magistrate
Judge in the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Defendants Mary Roush and
Mary Lawrence. Plaintiff argues that he “adequately alleged that he had an obvious need for
care and that the Defendants were aware of the need but did nothing to provide or attempt to get
the Plaintiff care.” (Pl.’s Objections at 2). However, as the Magistrate Judge thoroughly
discussed in the Report and Recommendation, such “[c]onclusory allegations that defendants
violated plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights and were “aware” that plaintiff needed additional
treatment . . . are simply insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference
claim.” (Report and Recommendation at 7). For the reasons stated in the Report and
Recommendation, this Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit.
The Report and Recommendation, Document 17, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Joel E. Kaye, M.D., Charles H. Muncrief, D.O., and S.
Douglas Haas, M.D., are hereby dismissed without prejudice of insufficiency of process. All of
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Mary Lawrence and Mary Roush are hereby dismissed with
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s state law
claims against all Defendants for violation of O.A.C. § 5120:1-8-19, O.A.C. § 5120:1-8-09, and
O.R.C. § 5120.01 are hereby dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. Finally, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is denied as to Plaintiff’s federal
2
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims of medical negligence against Defendants
John Gardner and Dr. Andrew Eddy.
The Clerk shall remove Documents 14, 17 and 18 from the Court’s pending motions list.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ George C. Smith__________________
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
