1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION

JASON STUBBS, Case No. 1:17-cv-721 

Plaintiff, 

Dlott, J. 

 vs Bowman, M.J. 

PAUL BRYANT, et al., 

Defendants. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Plaintiff, an inmate in the Warren Correctional Institution, filed this pro se civil 

action against defendants Deputy Paul Bryant and inmate Ivon Scarville. (Doc. 1). This 

matter is now before the Court on Defendant Paul Bryant’s motion for judgment on the 

pleadings (Doc. 21) and the parties responsive memoranda (Docs. 25, 26). 

I. Background and Facts 

On October 26, 2017, Plaintiff, an inmate in the Warren Correctional Institution, 

filed this pro se civil action against Defendants Deputy Paul Bryant and inmate Ivon 

Scarville. (Doc. 1). On January 16, 2018, this Court dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims 

against defendants Deputy Bryant and inmate Scarville, “with the exception of plaintiff’s 

Eighth Amendment failure-to protect claim against Bryant.” (Doc. 10, Order and Report 

and Recommendation, at Page ID 120). 

Plaintiff alleges that he requested protective control during his intake interview. 

(Doc. 1 at PageID 5). Plaintiff alleges a deputy sheriff escorted him to a unit where he 

was attacked by Scarville, Plaintiff’s cellmate. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that Scarville asked 

Plaintiff questions regarding a shooting Plaintiff was involved in and Plaintiff responded 
2 

by telling him “it was none of his concern.” (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that Scarville then 

“violently struck [Plaintiff’s] face breaking [his] jaw in four [separate] places.” (Id.). Plaintiff 

alleges that Defendant Bryant “had [knowledge] of this situation, and [defendant Bryant] 

failed to protect [Plaintiff].” (Id.). Plaintiff also claims that “I’ve been complaining about my 

broken jaw hurting for the last 5 years” and “my problem started happend [sic] in the [sic] 

8.4.13.” (Doc.1 at Page ID 8.) 

It appears from the complaint that this incident occurred on or about August 4, 

2013, more than four years before Plaintiff filed this instant action. Namely, Plaintiff 

appears to allege that Defendant Bryant failed to protect him – “8.4.13,” or about “5 years” 

ago. (Id.) Plaintiff’s complaint is regarding his “broken jaw,” which he has been 

complaining about “hurting for the last five years.” His “problem started happened [sic] in 

the 8.4.13.” As such, Defendants contend that this matter should be dismiss as a matter 

of law as untimely. The undersigned agrees. 

II. Defendants motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is well-taken 

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), “[a]fter the pleadings are closed--but early enough not 

to delay trial--a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” In ruling on a motion for 

judgment on the pleadings, the court must accept all the factual allegations in the 

complaint as true. United States v. Moriarty, 8 F.3d 329, 332 (6th Cir. 1993). “The motion 

is granted when no material issue of fact exists and the party making the motion is entitled 

to judgment as a matter of law.” Id., citing Paskvan v. City of Cleveland Civil Serv. 

Comm’n, 946 F.2d 1233, 1235 (6th Cir. 1991). 

Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint is governed by Ohio’s two-year statute of limitations 

applicable to personal injury claims. See Browning v. Pendleton, 869 F.2d 989, 992 (6th 
3 

Cir. 1989) (holding that the “appropriate statute of limitations for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil 

rights actions arising in Ohio is contained in Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10, which requires 

that actions for bodily injury be filed within two years after their accrual”); see also Wallace 

v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387 (2007) (and Supreme Court cases cited therein) (holding that 

the statute of limitations governing § 1983 actions “is that which the State provides for 

personal-injury torts”); Zundel v. Holder, 687 F.3d 271, 281 (6th Cir. 2012) (“the settled 

practice ... to adopt a local time limitation as federal law if it is not inconsistent with federal 

law or policy to do so” is applicable “to § 1983 actions and to Bivens actions because 

neither the Federal Constitution nor the § 1983 statute provides timeliness rules 

governing implied damages”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). 

Here, Plaintiff’s claims are governed by the two-year statute of limitations because 

it was a § 1983 civil rights action arising out of events that occurred in Ohio. Plaintiff’s 

complaint was filed on October 26, 2017. Therefore, any events alleged to have occurred 

before October 26, 2015, are untimely. As noted above, Plaintiff claims Defendant Bryant 

failed to protect him – “8.4.13,” or about “5 years” ago. (Id.) Plaintiff’s complaint is 

regarding his “broken jaw,” which he has been complaining about “hurting for the last five 

years.” His “problem started happened [sic] in the 8.4.13.” Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Eighth 

Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Defendants should be dismissed as untimely 

because it is outside the two-year statute of limitations period. 
4 

III. Conclusion 

For these reasons, is therefore RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ motion for 

judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 21) be GRANTED, all pending motions (Doc. 17) be 

DENIED as MOOT and this case be CLOSED.

 s/Stephanie K. Bowman 

 Stephanie K. Bowman 

 United States Magistrate Judge 
5 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION

JASON STUBBS, Case No. 1:17-cv-721 

Plaintiff, 

Dlott, J. 

 vs Bowman, M.J. 

PAUL BRYANT, et al., 

Defendants. 

NOTICE 

 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written 

objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after 

being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on 

timely motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the 

portion(s) of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in 

support of the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within 

FOURTEEN DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make 

objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas 

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