1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

James H. Lawson, Jr., :

Plaintiff : Civil Action 2:12-cv-00533

v. : Judge Smith 

Jessica McQuate, et al., : Magistrate Judge Abel

Defendants

:

Report and Recommendation

Plaintiff James H. Lawson, Jr., a state prisoner, brings this action alleging that

defendants have denied him medical care. This matter is before the Magistrate Judge

on plaintiff’s August 23, 2012 petition for injunction (doc. 13). 

Plaintiff Lawson seeks an order preventing the Ohio Department of

Rehabilitation and Correction from transferring him to another facility during the

pendency of this action. He alleges that he was told during the grievance process that he

would be transferred to another facility where he would be taken care of if he stopped

this process. Plaintiff fears that he will be transferred to a facility where he will not have

the resources necessary to continue to litigate this case. Plaintiff maintains that he has

been subjected to verbal harassment from a guard during pill call. He does not believe

his life is in physical danger. Plaintiff wishes to remain at the Chillicothe Correctional

Institution for the remainder of his sentence.

Case: 2:12-cv-00533-GCS-MRA Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/26/12 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

This Court does not have jurisdiction to issue an injunction against the Ohio

Department of Rehabilitation, which is not a party to this action. Furthermore, plaintiff

does not have a liberty interest in being assigned to a particular institution. The

determination of whether an inmate has a liberty interest in avoiding a particular

condition of confinement or a particular institutional placement is governed by Sandin

v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). Under Sandin, transfers to other institutions that do no

impose either atypical or significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of

prison life do not implicate an inmate’s constitutional due process rights. Id. at 484. 

For the reasons stated above, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that

plaintiff’s August 23, 2012 petition for injunction (doc. 13) be DENIED. 

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within

fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties a motion for reconsideration by the

Court, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof

in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B); Rule 72(b),

Fed. R. Civ. P.

The parties are specifically advised that 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. Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-152 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981);

United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005); Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373,

Case: 2:12-cv-00533-GCS-MRA Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/26/12 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3

380 (6th Cir. 1995). Even when timely objections are filed, appellate review of issues not

raised in those objections is waived. Willis v. Sullivan, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991).

s/ Mark R. Abel 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:12-cv-00533-GCS-MRA Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/26/12 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>