Rodriguez v. Uhrig et al, No. 2:2016cv00302 - Document 5 (S.D. Ohio 2016)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER adopting 3 the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 8/11/16. (jk) (This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF

Rodriguez v. Uhrig et al Doc. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Marcus A. Rodriguez, Plaintiff, V. Holly Uhrig, et al.. Case No. 2:16-cv-302 Judge Michael H. Watson Magistrate Judge Deavers Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Defendants violated his constitutional rights by subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment and retaliating against him for using the prison grievance process. The Magistrate Judge performed an initial screen of Plaintiffs Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and issued a report and recommendation ("R&R") recommending its dismissal. R&R, ECF No. 3. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended the Court dismiss Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment and retaliation claims against Defendants Holly Uhrig ("Uhrig") and Tara Smith ("Smith") on res judicata grounds and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. R&R 6-10, ECF No. 3. The Magistrate Judge further recommended the Court dismiss Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims against Defendant Deanna Garrett for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Id. Dockets.Justia.com at 10-11. Plaintiff objects on what appear to be two separate grounds. ECF No. 3. A. ResJudicata Plaintiff first appears to object to the Magistrate Judge's findings that his claims against Uhrig and Smith are barred by res Judicata. In Ohio, the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, provides that "a valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action." Millerv. Countrywide Home Loans, 747 F. Supp. 2d 947, 960 (S.D. Ohio 2010) (citation omitted). Claim preclusion is established by satisfying four elements: (1) a prior final, valid decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a second action involving the same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) a second action raising claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action; and (4) a second action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. Rider v. HSBC Mart. Corp. (USA), No. 2:12-<)v-924, 2013 WL 992510, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 13, 2013). The Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiffs claims against Uhrig and Smith are barred by res Judicata because Plaintiff could have litigated his instant claims in a previous case he brought against Uhrig and Smith, Case No. 15-cv2591. R&R 7-8, ECF No. 3. The Court dismissed Plaintiffs complaint in that case for failure to state a claim. See ECF No. 7, Case No. 15-cv-2591. Case No. 2:16-cv-302 Page 2 of 4 Defendant appears to argue that the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that the dismissai of his compiaint in the previous case constituted a vaiid decision on the merits, asserting that the Court dismissed the compiaint without prejudice. PiaintifTs argument is not weii taken. The Court dismissed PiaintifTs previous compiaint against Uhrig and Smith for faiiure to state a ciaim upon which relief may be granted. See ECF No. 7, Case No. 15-cv-2591. As such, the dismissal was on the merits and therefore with prejudice, even though the Order did not explicitly indicate the same. Cf. Pratt v. Ventas, Inc., 365 F.Sd 514, 522 (6th Cir. 2004) (dismissai for faiiure to state a ciaim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is a Judgment on the merits and therefore done with prejudice). PiaintifTs objection on this ground is therefore overruled. B. Failure to State an Eighth Amendment Claim Plaintiff also appears to object to the Magistrate Judge's determination that Plaintiff failed to state an Eighth Amendment ciaim against any of the three Defendants, asserting that his claims "reach a level to warrant relief." ObJ. 1, ECF No. 4. He maintains that "[t]he constant harassment by the Defendants over several months through the writing of False Conduct Reports, intentional 'shake downs' and the Racial Discrimination, is an infliction of mental anguish." ObJ. 2, ECF No. 4. Plaintiff provides no support, however, for the notion that such conduct constitutes excessive force or rises to the level of cruel and unusual punishment. The Court finds that it does not. Accordingly, Plaintiffs objection on this ground is overruled. Case No. 2:16-cv-302 Page 3 of 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES PlaintifTs objection, EOF No. 4, ADOPTS the R&R, EOF No. 3, and DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint. The Clerk shall terminate the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Case No. 2:16-cv-302 Page 4 of 4

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.