1

 Plaintiff has pending parallel litigation, Israfil v. Jackson, Southern

District of Ohio Case No. 1:10-cv-028, relating to his alleged denial of medical care.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

MUMIN ISRAFIL,

Plaintiff

 v.

MONA PARKS,

Defendant

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:10-cv-132

Judge Sargus

Magistrate Judge Abel

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Warren Correctional Institution, filed suit on

February 10, 2010, alleging that he had been unable to attend a medical

appointment at the Corrections Medical Center because prison staff had refused to

provide him with wheelchair assistance. In his complaint, he stated that he had

filed a grievance about this matter, but that in denying it the institutional inspector

had failed to investigate his allegations and had relied upon false statements made

by prison staff.1

 Plaintiff argues that he is being denied the opportunity to rebut

such false statements during the grievance process, and requests that the Court

recognize his constitutional right to challenge statements relied upon in the

disposition of grievances and order the defendant to fully investigate his

Case: 2:10-cv-00132-EAS-MRA Doc #: 23 Filed: 08/18/10 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

allegations.

Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6),

arguing that Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to an effective grievance

process. In rebuttal to this, Plaintiff argues that the failure to properly investigate

his allegations amounts to deliberate indifference to prison images’ constitutional

rights, and is actionable under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

The motion to dismiss (Doc. 15) should properly be granted. Regardless of

the substance of Plaintiff’s complaints (which is being litigated elsewhere), a prison

inmate does not have an inherent constitutional right to an effective prison

grievance procedure. Young v. Gundy, 30 Fed.Appx. 568, 569-70 (6th Cir. 2002),

citing Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430-31 (7th Cir. 1996). See also Argue

v. Hofmeyer, 80 Fed.Appx. 427, 430 (6th Cir. 2003); Keenan v. Marker, 23

Fed.Appx. 405, 407 (6th Cir. 2001); Mays v. Wilkinson, 181 F.3d 102 at *1 (6th Cir.

1999); Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 467 (1983). Prison officials are not obligated

to respond to an inmate’s grievances in a way satisfactory to the inmate. Overholt

v. Unibase Data Entry, Inc., 221 F.3d 1335, *3 (6th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s

allegations here of “reliance upon false material statements, disputable medical

opinion, and failure to investigate” on the part of the institutional inspectors

involved in the grievance process therefore do not, as a matter of law, state a claim

under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiff is entitled to pursue redress in the federal courts,

if he wishes, for his underlying claims of failure to provide for his medical needs. 

He cannot, however, complain about the procedures which Ohio’s corrections system

Case: 2:10-cv-00132-EAS-MRA Doc #: 23 Filed: 08/18/10 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3

followed or failed to follow in evaluating his grievance.

Accordingly, I RECOMMEND that the motion to dismiss (Doc. 15) be

GRANTED and that this case be DISMISSED.

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

party 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 judgement of the District Court. 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-52 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947

(6th Cir. 1981). See also, Small v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 892

F.3d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989). 

s/Mark R. Abel 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:10-cv-00132-EAS-MRA Doc #: 23 Filed: 08/18/10 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>