Golsby v. Jeffreys et al, No. 1:2013cv00157 - Document 53 (S.D. Ohio 2014)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 49 Report and Recommendation. The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 34 , and DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice. The Court further DENIES the remaining pending motions 35 42 43 as moot, and TERMINATES this matter on the Courts docket. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 6/24/2014. (km1) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/24/2014: # 1 Certified Mail Receipt) (km1).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : BRIAN GOLSBY, Plaintiff, vs. ROB JEFFREYS, et al., Defendants. NO. 1:13-CV-00157 OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge s Report and Recommendation (doc. 49), and Plaintiff s Objection (doc. 51). AFFIRMS For the reasons indicated herein, the Court ADOPTS and the Magistrate Judge s Report and Recommendation and DISMISSES this matter from the Court s docket. Plaintiff is an inmate currently incarcerated at the Toledo Correctional Institution, but previously incarcerated at the Lebanon Correctional Institution (LeCI) (doc. 49). While at LeCI he alleges he faced threats of violence and was involved in violent altercations from which Defendants allegedly failed to protect him (Id.). the Plaintiff filed a grievance regarding his concerns, but record shows he filed the instant completion of the grievance appeal (Id.). matter prior to the As such, the Magistrate Judge found Defendants argument correct that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Reform Litigation Act (Id. citing Freeman v. Francis, 196 F.3d 641, 645 (6th Cir. 1999)). Plaintiff has objected to the Report and Recommendation, contending he could not wait for the grievance procedure to be exhausted because his life was in danger (doc. 51). He appears to argue that because he sought injunctive relief in his Complaint, the Court should forgo the exhaustion requirement. Having reviewed this matter, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge s conclusion correct that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this suit. At this juncture, as Plaintiff has been moved to another institution, it is unclear what sort of injunctive relief, if any, is applicable to protect Plaintiff from threats of violence at LeCI, where he is not housed. The clear mandate of the PLRA requires exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to filing federal suit. Bock, 549 U.S. 201, 204 (2007). Jones v. By filing his Complaint too early, Plaintiff did not comply with the PLRA and Defendants are therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Proper Notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). United States v. As of the date of this Order, no objections have been filed. Having reviewed this matter de novo pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge s Report and Recommendation thorough, well-reasoned, and correct. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge s Report 2 and Recommendation (doc. 49), GRANTS Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 34), and DISMISSES Plaintiff s Complaint without prejudice. The Court further DENIES the remaining pending motions (docs. 35, 42, 43) as moot, and TERMINATES this matter on the Court s docket. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 24, 2014 s/S. Arthur Spiegel S. Arthur Spiegel United States Senior District Judge 3