IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

RONALD BLOODWORTH,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Action 2:10-CV-1122

Judge Marbley

Magistrate Judge King

DEBORA A. TIMMERMAN-COOPER,

WARDEN, et al.

Defendants.

ORDER

On February 12, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and

Recommendation recommending that defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Doc. No.

39, be granted in part and denied in part. Report and Recommendation,

Doc. No. 51. In particular, the Magistrate Judge recommended that counts

I, II, III, VIII and X be dismissed but that all other claims remain for

resolution. Id. Plaintiff has filed objections to the Report and

Recommendation. Objections, Doc. No. 60. The Court will consider the

matter de novo. 28 U.S.C. 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Plaintiff does not object to the recommendation that counts VIII and

X be dismissed, but does object to the recommendation that counts I, II,

and III of the Complaint be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(i). Counts I, II, and III allege a secret surveillance

campaign against him in violation of his rights under the Fourth and

Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution:

[A]s plaintiff engaged in various activities, considered

personal [inside] of his cell, i.e., pick up a piece of paper,

write on a piece of paper, experienced flatulence, touched his

pencil, moved his eyeballs, and, touched a piece of paper,

simultaneous therewith, and not until, corrections officers

working segregation would either: open the block entrance/exit

door, slam what sounds like a door in the area outside the [CRange] where officers congregate, extremely loudly, speak in

an abrupt tone of voice to an inmate in a cell on the C-Range,

Case: 2:10-cv-01122-ALM-NMK Doc #: 71 Filed: 08/28/12 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
and slam the C-Range entrance door very loudly.

Third Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 34, ¶ 11. Plaintiff complains that he

was “being constantly watched by an unknown prison official, via covert

and/or overt video surveillance cameras/equipment.” Id., ¶ 13. The

Magistrate Judge recommended that these claims be dismissed as frivolous

because they lack an arguable basis either in law or fact and are based

on “fanciful factual allegation[s].” Report and Recommendation, p. 4,

quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

Plaintiff objects to this recommendation, arguing that these claims

“are clearly not as far out as” the claims asserted in other cases

dismissed on similar grounds. Objections, Doc. No. 60, pp. 4-5; see

Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1199 (6th Cir. 1990); Turner v. U.S.

Navy, 793 F. Supp. 679, 680 (E.D. Va. 1992). Plaintiff also argues that

his allegations are not frivolous because of “the existence of video

surveillance cameras and spyware equipment, purportedly portraying the

wrongdoing.” Objections, Doc. No. 60, p.7.

This Court agrees that the claims asserted in counts I, II and III

of the Third Amended Complaint lack an arguable basis either in law or

fact and are appropriately dismissed. Under these circumstances,

plaintiff’s Objection, Doc. No. 60, is OVERRULED. The Report and

Recommendation, Doc. No. 51, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Doc. No. 39, is GRANTED in part and

DENIED in part. Counts I, II, III, VIII, and X of the Third Amended

Complaint, Doc. No. 34, are therefore DISMISSED. All other claims remain

for resolution.

2

Case: 2:10-cv-01122-ALM-NMK Doc #: 71 Filed: 08/28/12 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
 s/Algenon L. Marbley Algenon L. Marbley

 United States District Judge 

3

Case: 2:10-cv-01122-ALM-NMK Doc #: 71 Filed: 08/28/12 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>