Rodgers v. Aramark Correctional Services ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION GENESIS HILL, : : Plaintiff, : Case No. 1:23-cv-406 : v. : Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley : Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers : ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL : SERVICES, et al., : : Defendants. : TRACY RODGERS, : : Plaintiff, : Case No. 2:23-cv-2866 : v. : Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley : Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers : ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL : SERVICES, et al., : : Defendants. : ORDER Plaintiffs brought these related and substantially similar pro se civil rights suits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against multiple defendants, including Aramark Correctional Services, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC), ODRC officials, and Warren Correctional Institute (“WCI”) employees. (Hill, ECF No. 8; Rodgers, ECF No. 5). On October 27, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued Reports and Recommendations (“R&R”) in both cases, recommending both Plaintiffs be able to proceed with some of their First and/or Eighth Amendment retaliation and/or deliberate indifference claims (and the related supplemental state- law claims), and determined precisely which Defendants the claims could proceed against based on the factual variances in the Plaintiffs’ complaints. (Hill, ECF No. 9; Rodgers, ECF No. 6). In both cases, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiffs could proceed with the above- mentioned claims against Defendants Jane/John Doe Aramark supervisor,1 Ms. Woods, Mitchell- Jackson, Bullock, Williams, Macintosh, Agee, Back, Tatman, Cook, Wells, Jane Doe health-care administrator, nurse Sky, nurse Rachel Allen, and Luneke in their individual capacities. (Hill, ECF No. 9 at 7, 10–11; Rodgers, ECF No. 6 at 7, 11). The Magistrate Judge recommended the same as to the treating physician in both cases, with only a distinction in the naming of such: While both Plaintiffs initially refer to this physician as “John Doe, Doctor,” (Hill, ECF No. 8 at 13; Rodgers, ECF No. 5 at 14), Plaintiff Rodgers later identifies them as Drs. William Harlan and Richard Corbett (Rodgers, ECF No. 5 at 14), so the R&Rs reflect as much. (See e.g., Hill, ECF No. 9 at 6 n.4; Rodgers, ECF No. 6 at 6). The Magistrate Judge also recommended claims against some Defendants proceed in one case but not the other, allowing: (1) those against Sgt. Maggard in Hill but not in Rodgers, as Plaintiff Hill alleges he informed Sgt. Maggard how sick he was yet Sgt. Maggard provided no assistance (Hill, ECF No. 8 at 9; Hill, ECF No. 9 at 4); and (2) those against Epperson and Farmer in Rodgers but not in Hill, as Plaintiff Rodgers alleges those Defendants disregard their requests for medical attention (Rodgers, ECF No. 5 at 15; Rodgers, ECF No. 6 at 6). Aside from these, the Magistrate Judge recommends the rest of the claims against the rest of the individual Defendants in each case be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, (Hill, ECF No. 9 at 8–9; Rodgers, ECF No. 6 at 9), and that the complaint be dismissed as to both ODRC and Aramark for lack of institutional liability, (Hill, ECF No. 9 at 9– 10; Rodgers, ECF No. 6 at 9–11). 1 This Court finds no meaningful distinction between the R&R’s use of “Jane/John Doe Aramark supervisor” and “Ms. Woods” in Rodgers (Rodgers, ECF No. 6 at 7) versus “John/Jane Doe Aramark supervisor” and “Woods” and Hill (Hill, ECF No. 9 at 7), so this Court opts for the former of each in line with Plaintiffs’ complaints. Additionally, the Magistrate Judge concluded that this Court should: (1) decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims against the dismissed defendants; and (2) dismiss any such claims without prejudice. (Hill, ECF No. 9 at 11; Rodgers, ECF No. 6 at 11 (both citing Maze v. Ironton Police Dep’t, No. 1:20-cv-402, 2020 WL 3605865, at *5 (S.D. Ohio July 2, 2020) (Report and Recommendation), adopted, No. 1:20-cv- 402, 2020 WL 5094843 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 28, 2020)). Lastly, the Magistrate Judge requested that this Court deny either Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis as an appeal of any order adopting this R&R would not be taken in good faith. (Hill, ECF No. 9 at 11; Rodgers, ECF No. 6 at 11-12 (both citing see McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997)). Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the R&R within fourteen days and of the rights he would waive by failing to do so. (Hill, ECF No. 9 at 11-12; Rodgers, ECF No. 6 at 12). This Court has reviewed the R&Rs. No objections have been filed in either Hill or Rodgers, and the time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired. Finding the R&Rs to be correct in fact and law, this Court hereby ADOPTS the R&Rs (Hill, ECF No. 9; Rodgers, ECF No. 6). IT IS SO ORDERED. □ ALGENON L. MARB CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATED: April 15, 2024