IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Thomas G. Moody,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:18-cv-72

Mr. Evans, et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

This is a civil action brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983 by

plaintiff, an Ohio state inmate, two employees of the Ohio

Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. In an order filed on

March 12, 2018, the court adopted the initial screen report and

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissed this action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(h)(3) for failure to state a claim for which relief may be

granted. A judgment dismissing this case was also filed on March

12, 2018. On March 20, 2018, plaintiff submitted a memorandum

arguing that the judgment is void. The court will consider this

memorandum as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(b)(4).

Plaintiff contends that the court acted as counsel for the

defendant and rendered summary judgment without receiving a

response from the defendants. He argues that the judgment is void

because the court did not follow the procedures for summary

judgment, or consider any depositions, admissions or affidavits. 

He further contends that the court’s ruling was based on a 2017

case, not the facts in 2:18-cv-72.

These arguments are not well taken. No summary judgment
proceedings were pending in this case. This matter came before the

court on the initial screening procedure mandated under 28 U.S.C.

§1915A. Section 1915A provides that the “court shall review, ...

as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil

action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity

or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” §1915A(a). 

Section 1915A further mandates: “On review, the court shall ...

dismiss the complaint ... if the complaint—(1) is frivolous,

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted; (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

from such relief.” In addition, 28 U.S.C. §1915 provides that “the

court shall dismiss the case at any time” if the court determines

that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be

granted. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). No response from the

defendants was required for this initial screening review. This

court acted properly within its jurisdiction under these provisions

in reviewing the complaint and in determining that the complaint

failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

 As to the plaintiff’s argument that the court relied on facts

from another case, the court notes that the order filed on March

12, 2018, contains a typographical error in the case number in the

caption. The number in the caption is Case No. 2:17-cv-72, and the

correct case number is 2:18-cv-72. The order was correctly filed

on the docket for Case No. 2:18-cr-72. The order was based on the

facts alleged in the complaint which was filed in this case. See

Docs. 1 and 7. The typographical error in the case number in the

caption does not constitute a valid ground for voiding the

judgment. The court has prepared a nunc pro tunc order which

2
reflects the correct case number, and the clerk is directed to

enter this order on the docket.1

Plaintiff has not shown that the judgment in this case is

void, and plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion (Doc. 13) is denied.

Date: March 21, 2018 s/James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge 

1

To ward off any additional confusion concerning the case

numbers in this action, the court also notes that this case was

originally filed in the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, and was assigned the

case number 1:17-cv-782, the number which appears on the complaint. 

The case was transferred to the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern

Division, pursuant to S.D. Ohio Local Rule 82.1, see Doc. 6, at

which time it was reassigned its current case number, 2:18-cv-72.

3