IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

DONALD D. DANFORD,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:10-CV-124

JUDGE MARBLEY

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KING

STATE OF OHIO DEPARTMENT

OF REHABILITATION AND

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. 

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Objection, Doc. No. 57, to

the Magistrate Judge’s November 19, 2010 Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 124. For the

reasons that follow, the decision of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and affirmed. 

I.

Plaintiff is a state inmate who commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

claiming that he has been denied his constitutional right to medical care in violation of the

Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 22, against the

State of Ohio and the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction [“ODRC”]. The

Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion be denied. The Court considers the matter de

novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 

In his Complaint, Plaintiff clearly identified the following Defendants: Warden Banks

Case: 2:10-cv-00124-ALM-NMK Doc #: 71 Filed: 01/25/11 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
of the Noble Correctional Institution [“NCI”]; V. Sawyer, Health Care Administrator at NCI;

Wexford Health Sources; and Sara Seeburger, Health Services Administrator. The Complaint

also identifies “State of Ohio Department of Rehab. & Corr., et al Executive Director, Terry

Collins (O.D.R.C.) . . . .” and “Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections, Exec. Director

T. Collins . . . .” Complaint, Doc. No. 4, at 1 and 4. Service of process on Terry Collins was

returned unexecuted. See Doc. No. 7. Defendants Banks, Sawyer and Seeburger were served

with process and have filed timely Answers. See Doc. Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. 

Plaintiff asserts that he also intended to name both the State of Ohio and the ODRC as

Defendants in this action, and his motion for summary judgment seeks judgment against these

state entities for their alleged failure to respond to the Complaint. The Magistrate Judge

concluded that, even if the State of Ohio and ODRC had been properly named in this action,

summary judgment would be inappropriate. In particular, the Magistrate Judge noted that

“[s]tates and their agencies are absolutely immune from actions in federal courts brought under

42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 54, at 2. For this reason, the

Magistrate Judge concluded that the Court is without subject matter jurisdiction over the State of

Ohio and ODRC and recommended that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied.. 

In his Objection, Plaintiff states that he “does still believe that [the Complaint] includes

the State of Ohio and the ODRC as both are first two named defendants [sic]. . . .” Objection,

Doc. No. 57, at 3. Plaintiff further argues that the Magistrate Judge improperly concluded that

these defendants are immune from suit. Id. at 4-5. 

Plaintiff’s arguments are without merit. First, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge

that the Complaint does not clearly identify the State of Ohio and ODRC as Defendants. 

2

Case: 2:10-cv-00124-ALM-NMK Doc #: 71 Filed: 01/25/11 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Second, the Magistrate Judge correctly held that, even if they had been properly named, these

defendants would be immune from Plaintiff’s suit for damages. 

The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution “prevents a federal court

from entertaining a suit brought by a citizen against his own state. States are immune from such

suits unless a state waives its immunity.” Wolfel v. Morris, 972 F.2d 712, 718 (6th Cir. 1992)

(internal citations omitted). The ODRC is an agency of the State of Ohio. Neither the ODRC

nor the State of Ohio have waived their sovereign immunity to suit in this court. The Magistrate

Judge correctly concluded that no action for damages under § 1983 could proceed against the

State of Ohio or the ODRC even if they had been properly named as Defendants in this case. 

Thus, the Magistrate Judge was correct in recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment against these purported defendants be denied. 

II.

Plaintiff’s Objection, Doc. No. 57, to the Magistrate Judge’s November 19, 2010 Report

and Recommendation, Doc. No. 54, is DENIED. The Report and Recommendation, Doc. No.

54, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 22,

is DENIED. 

 s/Algenon L. Marbley 

ALGENON L. MARBLEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: January 25, 2011

3

Case: 2:10-cv-00124-ALM-NMK Doc #: 71 Filed: 01/25/11 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>