1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

RAVON L. JETER, SR.,

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT 

OF REHABILITATION 

AND CORRECTION, et 

al.,

 Defendants.

 

 : 

 :

 : 

 : 

 : 

 :

 :

 :

 :

 :

 :

 :

 

Case No. 1:17-cv-756

Judge Timothy S. Black 

Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman

DECISION AND ENTRY

ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 48)

AND TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United 

States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the 

Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on October 9, 2019, 

submitted a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that Defendants’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 40) be granted and that Plaintiff’s complaint be 

dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 48). Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time of 60 

days to respond to the R&R, and the Court granted Plaintiff leave “to file any objections 

to the R&R.” (Notation Order, Oct. 30, 2019). 

Rather than file objections to the R&R, the Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Suppress” 

(Doc. 53) and a “Motion to Alter or Amend Defendants’ Motion for Summary 
2

Judgment/Memorandum in Opposition by Plaintiff” (Doc. 54). Neither motion is 

authorized as a proper response to the R&R. Once a Magistrate Judge issues an R&R, 

Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides parties with a fourteen-day 

period (unless extended, as here) by which to file specific, written objections to the R&R.

The rules do not contemplate the filing of any motions that request an alternative decision 

by the Magistrate Judge in ruling on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment other 

than filing objections to the R&R as provided in Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Moreover, the 

motions are not proper supplemental pleadings under Fed. R Civ. P 15(d). Nevertheless, 

the Court does not strike the pleadings but instead treats the filings as objections to the 

R&R. 

Plaintiff’s “Motion to Suppress” does not seek to suppress evidence, but instead 

requests access to certain evidence, including additional video footage of the July 24, 

2017 incident and mental health records.1

 (Doc. 53). However, Plaintiff had ample 

opportunity to request discovery, an issue addressed by the Court on several occasions 

prior to entry of the R&R recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 

be granted. The Court established a case calendar with a discovery deadline of 

November 20, 2018. (Doc. 12). On May 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for production 

of discovery requesting DVR footage of the July 24th incident (Doc. 13), which the 

Magistrate Judge struck from the docket, directing Plaintiff to address discovery requests 

to the Defendants and their counsel (Doc. 14). Plaintiff also filed a motion to compel 

 1 Plaintiff states that the relevant pepper spray incident occurred on August 24, 2017. However, 

the record reflects that the incident occurred on July 24, 2017. 
3

discovery seeking footage from a closer video camera (Doc. 23), which the Court denied 

in an order explaining that Plaintiff failed to properly serve the request or attempt to 

resolve the perceived discovery dispute prior to filing a motion to compel with the Court 

(Doc. 33). The R&R also addresses Plaintiff’s request for additional, closer video 

footage, finding that based on the “overwhelming and undisputed evidence that supports 

the entry of summary judgment, the lack of additional video footage (if it exists) is 

immaterial.” (Doc. 48 at 7). The Defendants’ declarations state that Plaintiff made 

verbal threats and jumped to the font of his cell. Existing video footage corroborates that 

testimony and shows the officers “simultaneously and reactively jumping back from 

Plaintiff’s cell.” (Id. at 7). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s construed objection concerning the 

need for more discovery is overruled. 

In his “Motion to Alter or Amend Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment/Memorandum in Opposition by Plaintiff,” Plaintiff attempts to point to 

inconsistencies among the Defendants’ testimony, attacking their credibility. (Doc. 54 at 

5-8). However, credibility determinations are not appropriate at the summary judgment 

stage. Schrieber v. Moe, 596 F.3d 323, 333 (6th Cir. 2010). Moreover, the Magistrate 

Judge properly viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, yet found no 

dispute of material fact relating to Plaintiff’s excessive force or deliberate indifference 

claims. Plaintiff does not dispute that he refused an order to come out of his cell or that 

he made verbal threats to spit in an officer’s face, nor does Plaintiff dispute that he 

continued to argue after being directed to “cuff up.” (See Doc. 48 at 5-6). As noted 

above, video footage shows the officers simultaneously jumping back from Plaintiff’s 
4

cell right when Sgt. Bear strayed Plaintiff with pepper spray, which corroborates 

Defendants’ testimony that Plaintiff jumped to the front of the cell in a threatening 

manner. (Id. at 7). 

Moreover, Plaintiff appears to emphasize that he was left alone for five minutes 

after being sprayed, but the Magistrate Judge noted in the recitation of the facts that 

Nurse Brandon Lindamood arrived at Plaintiff’s cell within five minutes of the incident.

(See id. at 7). The five-minute delay does not alter the Magistrate Judge’s deliberate 

indifference analysis. Plaintiff also asserts that he did not refuse to be examined at his 

September 25, 2017 eye appointment, but that it was canceled due to security issues. 

(Doc. 54 at 8). However, the record reflects that although Plaintiff’s September 25th eye 

appointment was canceled due to security issues, it was rescheduled for the next day, at 

which time Plaintiff refused treatment upon learning the copay. (Doc. 40-7 at 67-68). 

Finally, Plaintiff states that Nurse Lindamood’s testimony that peeling skin is not a 

symptom of pepper spray is contradicted by the nurse practitioner who treated him after 

the incident. (Doc. 54 at 8). However, it is not clear who the unnamed nurse practitioner 

was, and Nurse Lindamood was the nurse that responded within five minutes of the 

incident. (Doc. 40-6). In sum, upon de novo review, the Court finds that the Magistrate 

Judge’s recommendations are thorough and accurate, and, accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

construed objections are overruled. 

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has 

reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all 

of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court finds that the 
5

Report and Recommendation (Doc. 48) should be and is hereby ADOPTED in its 

entirety.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above:

1) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 40) is GRANTED; 

2) Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 3) is DISMISSED with prejudice;

3) Defendants’ motion to strike (Doc. 56) is DENIED; 

4) The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is 

TERMINATED on the docket of this Court; and

5) The Court certifies that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal of 

this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore DENIES Plaintiff 

leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 

601 (6th Cir. 1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge

2/11/2020