IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

RAMMIE MANLEY, 

Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 2:18-cv-310 

 Judge Michael H. Watson 

 v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 

L. HUGHES, et al.,

 Defendants. 

ORDER and INITIAL SCREEN REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Plaintiff, Rammie Manley, a state inmate who is proceeding without the assistance of 

counsel, previously filed his Complaint (ECF No. 1), but failed to pay the requisite $400.00 

filing fee or to file an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court therefore 

issued an Order and Notice of Deficiency, advising Plaintiff of this deficiency and ordering him 

to submit the required filing fee or an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF 

No. 2.) Plaintiff has now filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4), 

along with a certified copy of his trust fund statement (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff’s motion for leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED. All judicial officers who render 

services in this action shall do so as if the costs had been prepaid. However, having performed 

the initial screen of the Complaint required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), for the reasons that follow, it 

is RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS this Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Ohio 

Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (“ODRC”) for failure to assert any claim on which 
2 

relief may be granted and that the remaining claims be TRANSFERRED to the Northern 

District of Ohio Eastern Division at Youngstown. 

I. 

Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the federal in forma pauperis statute, seeking to 

“lower judicial access barriers to the indigent.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). 

In doing so, however, “Congress recognized that ‘a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are 

assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from 

filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.’” Id. at 31 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 

U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). To address this concern, Congress included subsection (e)1

 as part of the 

statute, which provides in pertinent part: 

(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been 

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that-- 

* * * 

 (B) the action or appeal-- 

 (i) is frivolous or malicious; 

 (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or . . . . 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii); Denton, 504 U.S. at 31. Thus, § 1915(e) requires sua sponte

dismissal of an action upon the Court’s determination that the action is frivolous or malicious, or 

upon determination that the action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

 To properly state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a plaintiff must satisfy the 

basic federal pleading requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). See also 

Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470–71 (6th Cir. 2010) (applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

 

1

Formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). 
3 

12(b)(6) standards to review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). Under Rule 

8(a)(2), a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Thus, Rule 8(a) “imposes legal and factual 

demands on the authors of complaints.” 16630 Southfield Ltd., P’Ship v. Flagstar Bank, F.S.B., 

727 F.3d 502, 503 (6th Cir. 2013). 

Although this pleading standard does not require “‘detailed factual allegations,’ . . . [a] 

pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action,’” is insufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A complaint will not “suffice if it tenders ‘naked 

assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). 

Instead, to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), “a 

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on 

its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Facial plausibility is established “when the 

plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “The plausibility of an inference depends on 

a host of considerations, including common sense and the strength of competing explanations for 

the defendant’s conduct.” Flagstar Bank, 727 F.3d at 504 (citations omitted). Further, the Court 

holds pro se ain complaints “‘to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by 

lawyers.’” Garrett v. Belmont Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t., No. 08-3978, 2010 WL 1252923, at *2 (6th 

Cir. April 1, 2010) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). This lenient 

treatment, however, has limits; “‘courts should not have to guess at the nature of the claim 

asserted.’” Frengler v. Gen. Motors, 482 F. App’x 975, 976–77 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Wells v. 

Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989)). 
4 

II. 

Plaintiff is an inmate at the Ohio State Penitentiary (“OSP”), a prison located in 

Mahoning County, Ohio. (See generally ECF No. 1.) According to the Complaint, Plaintiff was 

assaulted by corrections officers and lieutenants while in segregation at OSP. (Id. at PAGEID ## 

6–8.) Plaintiff alleges that he suffered injuries resulting from this attack. (Id.) 

The Complaint names as Defendants ten individual OSP corrections officers and 

lieutenants. (Id. at PAGEID ## 2–5.) On the first page of the Complaint, Plaintiff also identifies 

ODRC as a Defendant. (Id. at PAGEID # 1.) However, the Complaint contains no factual 

allegations against ODRC. (See generally id.) Accordingly, Plaintiff has alleged no set of facts 

that would constitute a cause of action against ODRC. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 

678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 

Plaintiff’s remaining claims are against Defendants who do not reside in this district and 

concern the conditions of his confinement and the propriety of certain incidents that he alleges 

occurred at OSP, which is located in Mahoning County, Ohio, and which falls within the 

jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern 

Division. 28 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1). Venue in this Court is therefore not proper. Id.; see also 28 

U.S.C. § 1391 (stating that venue is proper in the judicial district where any defendants reside or 

in which the claims arose). Instead, venue is proper in the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Ohio Eastern Division at Youngstown, which serves Mahoning County. 

III. 

For the reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to assert any claim on which 

relief may be granted against Defendant ODRC. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that 

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant ODRC be dismissed for failure to assert any claim on which 
5 

relief may be granted. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be 

TRANSFERRED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or 1406 to the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Ohio Eastern Division at Youngstown. 

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS 

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that 

party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and 

Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part in 

question, as well as the basis for objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object to the Report and 

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and 

waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. See, e.g., Pfahler v. Nat=l Latex 

Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that “failure to object to the magistrate 

judge’s recommendations constituted a waiver of [the defendant’s] ability to appeal the district 

court’s ruling”); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that 

defendant waived appeal of district court’s denial of pretrial motion by failing to timely object to 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). Even when timely objections are filed, 

appellate review of issues not raised in those objections is waived. Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 

981, 994 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s report, which fails to 

specify the issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for appeal . . . .”) (citation 

omitted)). 
6 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: May 24, 2018 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE