UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

DAVID PLUMLEY, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. Case No.: 2:18-cv-50 

JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH 

Magistrate Judge Jolson 

DEPUTY MAYER, et al., 

 Defendants. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Officer B. George’s Motion for Judgment 

on the Pleadings (Doc. 11). Plaintiff has not responded in opposition to Defendant’s Motion. For 

the following reasons, Defendant George’s Motion is GRANTED. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff David Plumley initiated this case on January 19, 2018, against Defendants 

Lapetina, Mayer, and McGuire, all members of the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office, and 

Defendant George, a Columbus Police Officer. Plaintiff asserts that on January 19, 2016, he was 

driving his vehicle Eastbound on Glenchester Drive approaching Hilliard Rome Road when he 

suffered a seizure due to his ongoing medical conditions, which include brain cancer. Plaintiff 

drove through a stop sign and crashed his vehicle into a yard at 344 Hilliard Rome Road. 

With respect to Defendant George, Plaintiff alleges: “10. Defendant George observed the 

incident and followed the Plaintiff’s car. . . .” (Doc. 2, Am. Compl. ¶ 10). In the four causes of 

action asserted by Plaintiff, he alleges three (first, third and fourth) against Defendants generally, 
2 

but does not make any specific allegations against Defendant George other than what is noted 

above. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

Rule 12(c) provides that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay 

trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” The standard of review for a motion for 

judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is the same as that used to address a motion to dismiss 

under Rule 12(b)(6). Id.; Lindsay v. Yates, 498 F.3d 434, 438 (6th Cir. 2007). 

Rule 12(b)(6) permits dismissal of a lawsuit for “failure to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted.” To meet this standard, a party must allege sufficient facts to state a claim that is 

“plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A pleading will 

satisfy this plausibility standard if it contains “factual content that allows the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In considering whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted, the Court must “construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, accept its allegations as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” 

Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund v. Standard & Poor’s Fin. Servs. LLC, 700 F.3d 829, 835 (6th 

Cir. 2012) (quoting Directv, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir. 2007)). However, “the 

tenet that a court must accept a complaint’s allegations as true is inapplicable to threadbare recitals 

of a cause of action’s elements, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663. 

Thus, while a court is to afford plaintiff every inference, the pleading must still contain facts 

sufficient to “provide a plausible basis for the claims in the complaint;” a recitation of facts 

intimating the “mere possibility of misconduct” will not suffice. Flex Homes, Inc. v. Ritz-Craft 

Corp of Mich., Inc., 491 F. App’x 628, 632 (6th Cir. 2012); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. 
3 

In sum, “[f]or purposes of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, all well-pleaded 

material allegations of the pleadings of the opposing party must be taken as true, and the motion 

may be granted only if the moving party is nevertheless clearly entitled to judgment.” JPMorgan 

Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget, 510 F.3d 577, 581 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting S. Ohio Bank v. Merrill 

Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 479 F.2d 478, 480 (6th Cir. 1973)). 

III. DISCUSSION 

Defendant George moves for judgment on the pleadings on Plaintiff’s claims against him, 

which include: Count 1 (violation of the Fourth Amendment for excessive force during his arrest); 

Count 3 (violation of the Eighth Amendment for failure to provide necessary medical treatment); 

and Count 4 (negligent infliction of emotional distress). 

Plaintiff’s only allegations against Defendant George are that he was a Columbus police 

officer at the time of the incident and that he observed the incident and followed Plaintiff’s car. 

Defendant George argues that assuming all allegations are true for purposes of construing the 

motion for judgment on the pleadings, Plaintiff has failed to allege any misconduct by Officer 

George so that he could be held liable under the Fourth or Eighth Amendments, or that he 

negligently inflicted emotional distress. Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant’s Motion. 

After careful review of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, the Court agrees that Plaintiff has 

failed to sufficiently allege any actions by Defendant George to maintain claims for violation of 

the Fourth and Eighth Amendments or for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff’s 

claims are directed at Defendants generally. The Sixth Circuit “has consistently held that damage 

claims against government officials arising from alleged violations of constitutional rights must 

allege, with particularity, facts that demonstrate what each defendant did to violate the asserted 

constitutional right.” Lanman v. Hinson, 529 F.3d 673, 684 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Terrance v. 

Northville Reg’l Psychiatric Hosp., 286 F.3d 834, 842 (6th Cir. 2002)) (emphasis in original). 
4 

“[C]ategorical references to ‘Defendants’” do not meet this standard. Marcilis v. Twp. of Redford, 

693 F.3d 589, 596–97 (6th Cir. 2012). Nor do allegations that an individual defendant “was present 

and perhaps involved in [the plaintiff’s] restraint,” without allegations as to the unconstitutionality 

of the individual defendant’s actions. Lanman, 529 F.3d at 684. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims 

against Defendant George are hereby dismissed. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant George’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is 

GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims set forth in the Amended Complaint against Defendant George are 

hereby DISMISSED. 

The Clerk shall remove Document 11 from the Court’s pending motions list. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ George C. Smith 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT