Johnson v. Humphrey et al, No. 1:2018cv00043 - Document 17 (S.D. Ohio 2018)
Court Description: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING 7 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1), with the exception of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment individual capacity conditions-of-confinement claim asserted against Defendant Eaches and Eighth Amendment individual capacity excessive-force claim asserted against Defendants McCroskey, Bell, and Rodgers. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 3/29/18. (sct)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Johnson v. Humphrey et al Doc. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION TYRONE R. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL HUMPHREY, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : Case No. 1:18-cv-43 Judge Timothy S. Black Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 7) This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on March 5, 2018, submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 7). Plaintiff filed objections on March 15, 2018 (Doc. 8). 1 As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does determine that such Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby adopted in its 1 Plaintiff’s objections are not well-taken. The Report and Recommendation recommended dismissal of several of Plaintiff’s claims, either because there were not adequate factual allegations to support a claim or because there was no legal basis for a claim. Plaintiff’s objections contain no new factual allegations that would lead this Court to decline to adopt the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff also does not address the legal deficiencies of certain claims, including the fact that Plaintiff has improperly attempted to sue several supervisory personnel under a respondeat superior theory that does not apply in § 1983 lawsuits. 1 Dockets.Justia.com entirety. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1-1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1), with the exception of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment individual capacity conditions-of-confinement claim asserted against Defendant Eaches and Eighth Amendment individual capacity excessive-force claim asserted against Defendants McCroskey, Bell, and Rodgers. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: March 29, 2018 ________________________ Timothy S. Black United States District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
