UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

CHARLES LEWIS DODSON,

Plaintiff,

 Civil Action 2:11-cv-164

v. Judge Michael H. Watson

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

WARDEN EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, Charles Lewis Dodson, an Ohio inmate who is proceeding in forma pauperis

and without the assistance of counsel, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against Defendants Noble Correctional Institution (“NCI”) Warden Edward Banks and NCI

Health Care Administrator Vanessa Sawyer. Plaintiff also named as Defendants Wexford Health

Sources, Inc.; Wexford Health Services Administrator Sara Seeburger; and Wexford employees

at Noble Correctional Institute (collectively, the “Wexford Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that

Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth

Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court previously granted the Wexford

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss such that only Defendants Banks and Sawyer remain. (ECF No.

15.) This matter is before the United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation

on Defendants Banks and Sawyer’s unopposed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (ECF

No. 18.) For the reasons that follow, it is RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss be GRANTED. (ECF No. 18.) 

Case: 2:11-cv-00164-MHW-EPD Doc #: 19 Filed: 01/17/13 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
In their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Defendants Banks and Sawyer assert that

they are entitled to judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) because Plaintiff has

failed to plead an Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim. Defendants’ Motion simply

parrots the analysis set in the December 1, 2011 Report and Recommendation. In that Report

and Recommendation, the Undersigned analyzed the allegations set forth in the Complaint and

recommended that the Court grant the Wexford Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on the grounds

that Plaintiff had failed to state an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim. (ECF No.

13.) On December 29, 2011, the Court adopted the December 1, 2011 Report and

Recommendation. (ECF No. 15.) Defendants alternatively posit that they are entitled to

judgment under 12(c) because Plaintiff failed to allege that they were personally involved in his

medical treatment. 

The Undersigned agrees that Defendants Banks and Sawyer are entitled to judgment

under Rule 12(c) because Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently plead an Eighth Amendment medical

indifference claim. As set forth above, the Undersigned analyzed this very issue in the

December 1, 2011 Report and Recommendation, which is incorporated herein its entirety by

reference. Because Plaintiff has failed to state a an Eighth Amendment claim, it is unnecessary

to consider the merits of Defendants’ alternative argument in favor of dismissal. 

In sum, for the reasons set forth in the December 1, 2011 Report and Recommendation

(ECF No. 13), it is RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 18) be

GRANTED. 

2

Case: 2:11-cv-00164-MHW-EPD Doc #: 19 Filed: 01/17/13 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
 PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS

If Plaintiff seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, he

may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and

Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part in

question, as well as the basis for objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Plaintiff is specifically advised that the failure to object to the Report and

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and

waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. See, e.g., Pfahler v. Nat’l Latex

Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that “failure to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendations constituted a waiver of [the defendant’s] ability to appeal the district

court’s ruling”); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that

defendant waived appeal of district court’s denial of pretrial motion by failing to timely object to

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). Even when timely objections are filed,

appellate review of issues not raised in those objections is waived. Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d

981, 994 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s report, which fails to

specify the issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for appeal . . . .”) (citation

omitted)).

Date: January 17, 2013 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers

 United States Magistrate Judge

3

Case: 2:11-cv-00164-MHW-EPD Doc #: 19 Filed: 01/17/13 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>