1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JOSEPH WILSON LEWIS, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 Civil Action 2:18-cv-603 

 v. Judge George C. Smith 

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 

O.D.R.C., 

 Defendant. 

 

 

INITIAL SCREEN REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 Plaintiff, Joseph Wilson Lewis, who is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, is an 

inmate under the control of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. (“ODRC”) 

and brings this prisoner civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 19, 2018, the Court 

granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 3.) This matter is now before 

the Court sua sponte for an initial screen of Plaintiff’s Complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2) to identify cognizable claims and to recommend dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint, or 

any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(e)(2). Having performed the initial screen, for the reasons that follow, it is 

RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS this Plaintiff’s claims for failure to assert any 

claim on which relief may be granted. 
I.

 Congress has authorized the sua sponte dismissal of complaints that fail to state a claim 

upon which relief maybe granted. 2 8 U.S.C. §§ 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). A 

complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff must be “liberally construed” and “held to less stringent 

standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) 

(per curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). By the same token, however, 

the complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th 

Cir. 2010) (“dismissal standard articulated in Iqbal and Twombly governs dismissals for failure 

to state a claim” under §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). 

 A federal court has limited subject matter jurisdiction. “The basic statutory grants of 

federal court subject-matter jurisdiction are contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides for 

‘[f]ederal-question’ jurisdiction, and § 1332, which provides for ‘[d]iversity of citizenship’ 

jurisdiction.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006). Federal-question jurisdiction is 

invoked when a plaintiff pleads a claim “arising under” the federal laws, the Constitution, or 

treaties of the United States. Id. (citation omitted). For a federal court to have diversity 

jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332(a), there must be complete diversity, which means that 

each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state than each defendant, and the amount in 

controversy must exceed $75,000. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). 

II. 

 According to the Complaint, Defendant was temporarily housed at the Mansfield 

Correctional Institution (“MCI”) in Richland, County, Ohio. (ECF No. 1-2 at 5-6.) Plaintiff’s 
3 

claims arise from events that occurred while he was incarcerated under ODRC control at MCI. 

In his Complaint, Plaintiff names only the “State of Ohio, ‘ODRC’” as Defendants, rather than 

the individuals responsible for the alleged refusal to treat his seizure disorder. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) 

Plaintiff seeks unspecified declaratory relief and compensatory damages. (ECF No. 1-2 at 6.) 

 The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution precludes a private party 

from bringing suit against a state or any of the state’s agencies unless the state has expressly 

consented to the suit or Congress has properly abrogated the state’s sovereign immunity. 

Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 58 (1996); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 , 782 

(1978). “Ohio has not waived its sovereign immunity in federal court.” Mixon v. Ohio, 193 F. 3d 

389, 397 (6th Cir. 1999). And “Congress did not intend to override well-established immunities 

or defenses under the common law” by enacting § 1983. Will v. Mich. Dept. of State Police, 491 

U.S. 58, 67 (1989). Accordingly, there are very limited exceptions to state and state actor 

immunity here. Cady v. Arenac Cnty., 574 F.3d 334, 344 (6th Cir. 2009). First, a plaintiff may 

bring a claim against a state official acting in his or her official capacity if the plaintiff seeks only 

“prospective injunctive or declaratory relief.” Id. (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 276-

78 (1986)). Second, a plaintiff may bring a claim for monetary damages against a state official 

in his or her individual capacity. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165- 68 (1985); Turker 

v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., 157 F.3d 453, 457 (6th Cir. 1998). 

 Because none of the limited exceptions to Eleventh Amendment immunity apply here, 

the Undersigned finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 

III. 

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

relief may be granted. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s 
4 

claims pursuant to Section 1915(e)(2). If Plaintiff intended to name the individuals responsible 

for the alleged refusal to treat his seizure disorder and mistakenly named only O.D.R.C., he may 

file an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) 

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 of 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 [th 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)). 
5 

 

 

 

Date: July 26, 2018 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE