1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Jan Tomlin,

Plaintiff

 v.

Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation &

Corrections,

Defendant

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:12-cv-262

Judge Sargus

Magistrate Judge Abel

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff filed this action on March 26, 2012. He attached to his complaint a

motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, stating:

Plaintiff and inmate Daniel Dobbies were given an institutional

separation and therefore not allowed around each other. On March 8,

2012 plaintiff and inmate Dobbies were both transferred from

[Mansfield Correctional Institution] to [Trumbull Correctional

Institution] on the same transport van. Inmate Dobbies headbutted

and spit on the plaintiff and threatened to attack plaintiff “on sight”. 

Plaintiff was placed in segregation on March 9, 2012 but was told he

would be returned to T.C.I. population where inmate Dobbies currently

still is. Plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.

(Doc. 2 at 4.) In his complaint, Plaintiff requested as relief an immediate transfer

to Ross Correctional Institution, “expungment of my prison institutional record”,

$15,000 in compensatory damages, $10,000 in punitive damages, and any other

relief the Court deemed appropriate. (Doc. 1 at 6.)

Case: 2:12-cv-00262-EAS-MRA Doc #: 12 Filed: 04/27/12 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

The Court directed Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff’s request for

injunctive relief. On March 29, 2012 Defendant filed a response stating that

Plaintiff’s request was moot, as he was scheduled to be transferred out of Trumbull

Correctional Institution on April 3, 2011. (Doc. 6 at 3.) On April 5, 2012, Defendant

filed a supplemental notice that Plaintiff had been transferred as scheduled to the

Lebanon Correctional Institution. (Doc. 7 at 1.) It attached a printout from the

Ohio offender search database website, which indicated on its face that Plaintiff

was now incarcerated at LCI.

On April 9, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why, if he had

been transferred out of Trumbull Correctional Institution and away from inmate

Dobies as he requested, the claim set forth in his complaint is not now moot. (Doc.

10.) On April 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a response, in which he reiterated the

allegations in his complaint and commented that Defendant never should have put

him in proximity with inmate Dobies, and “I feel they put my life in danger”. (Doc.

11 at 1.)

Plaintiff has failed to offer any explanation for why his request for an

immediate transfer due to imminent danger of serious physical harm is not now

moot, given that he has already been transferred. He has also not responded to the

Court’s requirement that he show cause why his claim for being endangered by

incarceration in the same institution as inmate Dobies is not now moot after his

transfer to LCI.

Accordingly, pursuant to the Court’s Order of April 9, 2012 and 28 U.S.C.

Case: 2:12-cv-00262-EAS-MRA Doc #: 12 Filed: 04/27/12 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3

§1915A(b)(1), I RECOMMEND that Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining

order be DENIED and that this action be DISMISSED as MOOT. Defendant need

not move or plead in response to the complaint in this action unless and until

otherwise ordered.

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

v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 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-00262-EAS-MRA Doc #: 12 Filed: 04/27/12 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>