IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

SHANE BAKER,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 2:13-cv-0034

JUDGE SMITH

Magistrate Judge King

JOEL E. KAYE, M.D., et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

On July 23, 2013, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation recommending that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED IN PART 

AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Plaintiff’s 

claims against Defendants Joel E. Kaye, M.D., Charles H. Muncrief, D.O., and S. Douglas Haas, 

M.D., be dismissed without prejudice of insufficiency of process, that all claims against 

Defendants Mary Lawrence and Mary Roush be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, and that Plaintiff’s state law claims against all 

Defendants for violation of O.A.C. § 5120:1-8-19, O.A.C. § 5120:1-8-09, and O.R.C. § 5120.01 

be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. It is 

further recommended that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is denied as to Plaintiff’s federal 

claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims of medical negligence against Defendants 

John Gardner and Dr. Andrew Eddy. (See Report and Recommendation, Doc.17). The parties 

were advised of their right to object to the Report and Recommendation. This matter is now 

Case: 2:13-cv-00034-GCS-NMK Doc #: 19 Filed: 10/09/13 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

before the Court on Plaintiff Shane Baker’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation. (See

Doc. 18). The Court will consider the matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 72(b)(3).

The objections present the same issues presented to and considered by the Magistrate 

Judge in the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s 

recommendation to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Defendants Mary Roush and 

Mary Lawrence. Plaintiff argues that he “adequately alleged that he had an obvious need for 

care and that the Defendants were aware of the need but did nothing to provide or attempt to get 

the Plaintiff care.” (Pl.’s Objections at 2). However, as the Magistrate Judge thoroughly 

discussed in the Report and Recommendation, such “[c]onclusory allegations that defendants 

violated plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights and were “aware” that plaintiff needed additional 

treatment . . . are simply insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference 

claim.” (Report and Recommendation at 7). For the reasons stated in the Report and 

Recommendation, this Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. 

The Report and Recommendation, Document 17, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. 

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Joel E. Kaye, M.D., Charles H. Muncrief, D.O., and S. 

Douglas Haas, M.D., are hereby dismissed without prejudice of insufficiency of process. All of 

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Mary Lawrence and Mary Roush are hereby dismissed with 

prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s state law 

claims against all Defendants for violation of O.A.C. § 5120:1-8-19, O.A.C. § 5120:1-8-09, and 

O.R.C. § 5120.01 are hereby dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted. Finally, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is denied as to Plaintiff’s federal 

Case: 2:13-cv-00034-GCS-NMK Doc #: 19 Filed: 10/09/13 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3

claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims of medical negligence against Defendants 

John Gardner and Dr. Andrew Eddy. 

The Clerk shall remove Documents 14, 17 and 18 from the Court’s pending motions list.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ George C. Smith__________________ 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case: 2:13-cv-00034-GCS-NMK Doc #: 19 Filed: 10/09/13 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>