IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Rico Isaih Hairston,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:18-cv-951

Mr. Nelson Emeaghara,

Defendant.

ORDER

This is an action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 filed by Rico Isaih

Hairston, an Ohio pro se inmate, against Nelson Emeaghara, a

chaplain at the Correctional Reception Center (“CRC”). Plaintiff

alleged that when defendant made his rounds on July 28, 2018,

plaintiff requested weekly church services for the segregation

unit, but defendant responded that he did not have time for that

request. Four days after plaintiff filed an informal complaint, he

received a response stating that defendant would talk with him the

next time he completed his rounds in segregation. Plaintiff

further alleged that he then filed a formal grievance seeking

monetary compensation, which was denied. He filed an appeal on

August 14, 2018, and filed the instant action on August 24, 2018. 

Plaintiff was transferred to the Toledo Correctional Institution on 

August 30, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that defendant’s failure to

provide weekly religious services while he was housed in

segregation violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth

Amendments and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons

Act (“RLUIPA”). 

On September 28, 2018, the magistrate judge filed a report and

recommendation on the initial screen of plaintiff’s complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A, which requires the court, “in a civil

action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity

or officer or employee of a governmental entity,” to dismiss a

complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a)-(b)(1).

With regard to plaintiff’s First Amendment claim, the

magistrate judge found that plaintiff failed to allege that the

services he requested were central or mandatory for his religion,

or that the lack of weekly services for the brief two-week period

between the filing of his appeal on August 14, 2018, and his

transfer to the Toledo institution on August 30, 2018,

substantially burdened his sincerely held religious beliefs. The

magistrate judge concluded that because only injunctive relief is

available under RLUIPA, plaintiff’s transfer to the Toledo facility

rendered his RLUIPA claim concerning defendant’s actions at the CRC

moot. The magistrate judge also observed that plaintiff failed to

allege facts indicating that his race was the reason for the denial

of his request for weekly services for the segregation unit so as

to support an equal protection claim. The magistrate judge

recommended that this action be dismissed for failure to state a

claim on which relief may be granted.

The report and recommendation specifically advised the parties

that objections to the report and recommendation were due within

fourteen days, and that the failure to object to the report and

recommendation would result in a waiver of the right to have the

district judge review the report and recommendation de novo and a

waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the district court. 

Doc. 8, p. 10. The time period for filing objections to the report

2
and recommendation has expired, and no objections to the report and

recommendation have been filed.

The court agrees with the report and recommendation (Doc. 8),

and it is hereby adopted. This action is hereby dismissed pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because plaintiff’s complaint fails

to state a claim for which relief may be granted. Plaintiff’s

motion for the clerk to make service copies (Doc. 2) is denied as

moot. The clerk shall enter judgement dismissing this case.

Date: October 22, 2018 s/James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

3