IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

CARL LEE RAMEY, Sr.,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Action 2:12-cv-592 

 Judge Frost

Magistrate Judge King

GARY MOHR, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an inmate at the London Correctional Institution

[“LoCI”], brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming a denial of

medical care. This matter is now before the Court for the initial screen

of the Complaint, Doc. No. 3, required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e), 1915A.

Named as defendants to the Complaint are the Director of the

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction [“ODRC”] and various

officials at LoCI, including the warden, the institutional inspector, an

administrative assistant, the director of special services and the

medical director. Plaintiff alleges that, because of a change in ODRC

policy, certain over the counter medications that had previously been

prescribed for him, including fish oil, Tylenol, medication for gastric

reflux disease and allergies, are no longer provided to him. Plaintiff

also alleges that he has not been referred to a specialist for treatment

of genital warts, cysts and a rash on his face. Plaintiff asks that the

Court order a full physical on plaintiff’s “stomach, throat, knee and

testicles . . . and all [his] medications that [he] needs.” Complaint,

p. 7. Plaintiff also seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Case: 2:12-cv-00592-GLF-NMK Doc #: 4 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Constitution proscribe "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs

of prisoners." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). The

Constitution does not, however, prohibit medical malpractice within the

prison context. Id.; Wester v. Jones, 554 F.2d 1285, 1286 (4th Cir.

1977); Hampton v. Holmesburg Prison Officials, 546 F.2d 1077, 1081 (3d

Cir. 1976). Of course, a dispute over the course of medical treatment

is likewise not actionable under §1983. Young v. Gray, 560 F.2d 201 (5th

Cir. 1977). On the other hand, the needless suffering of pain when

relief is readily available gives rise to a cause of action against those

whose deliberate indifference caused the inmate's unnecessary pain. 

Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857 (6th Cir. 1976). Moreover, an inmate can

state a colorable claim under §1983 even if it is alleged that the

difference to his medical needs existed for only a short period of time. 

Byrd v. Wilson, 701 F.2d 592 (6th Cir. 1983).

Documents attached to the Complaint indicate that plaintiff

has received substantial medical care on an approximate monthly basis at

LoCI for hypertension, diabetes and elevated lipids. In a March 2011

disposition of plaintiff’s grievance, the Chief Inspector advised

plaintiff that treatment, including removal, of warts and rashes had not

been authorized in the absence of medical necessity or complications. 

Decision of the Chief Inspector on a Grievance Appeal, attached to

Complaint at p. 38. Over the counter medications, such as Prilosec, are

apparently no longer prescribed for plaintiff but are available for

purchase at the prison commissary. Although plaintiff complains that he

cannot afford to purchase these medications, the Chief Inspector, in a

June 2011 denial of plaintiff’s grievance appeal, noted that

you spent $238.35 [at the LoCI commissary] but did

2

Case: 2:12-cv-00592-GLF-NMK Doc #: 4 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
not purchase an[y] gastric reflux medication. I

note that you have purchased coffee; tea; honey;

mayonnaise; 2 pounds of sugar cubes; dill pickles,

peanut butter; ice cream; 45 pkgs Ramen noodles;

Vienna sausages, 30 pkgs chips/crackers; popcorn;

and 73 pkgs of cookies/pastry/candy items.

Decision of the Chief Inspector on a Grievance Appeal, attached to

Complaint at p. 31. In October 2011, the Chief Inspector noted that

plaintiff refused an assessment of his complaints of warts and rash by

defendant Dr. Woods because she is female. Decision of the Chief

Inspector on a Grievance Appeal, attached to Complaint at p. 33.

The evidence submitted by plaintiff himself demonstrates that

plaintiff has not been denied the medical care to which he is

constitutionally entitled. The Court therefore concludes that the

Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1).

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the action be dismissed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1) for failure to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report

and Recommendation, that party 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

thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28

U.S.C. §636(b)(1); F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to objections must be

filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. 

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

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to

3

Case: 2:12-cv-00592-GLF-NMK Doc #: 4 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de

novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the decision

of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers,

Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States v. Walters, 

638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

 s/Norah McCann King 

 Norah McCann King

 United States Magistrate Judge

DATE: July 6, 2012

4

Case: 2:12-cv-00592-GLF-NMK Doc #: 4 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>