IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

RICARDO VERNAIR DODSON, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No.: 2:18-cv-908 

vs. JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH 

 Magistrate Judge Ovington 

GARY C. MOHR, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 ORDER 

On December 9, 2019, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation recommending that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be granted in part and 

denied in part. (See Report and Recommendation, Doc. 31). The parties were advised of their 

right to object to the Report and Recommendation and of the consequences of their failure to do 

so. This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s 

Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 34) and Defendants’ objections to the Report and 

Recommendation. (Doc. 37).1

 

A. Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation 

 Plaintiff first objects to the dismissal of his retaliation claim arguing that the “Magistrate 

Judge did not review and consider each claim/issued raised relating to the retaliation claim.” 

 

1

 In addition to filing his objections, Plaintiff has filed a Motion for the Clerk to Provide Notice of his 

filing of objections (Doc. 35) and a Motion to Amend/Correct the Record of the date which Plaintiff filed 

his Objection (Doc. 38). The Court cannot alter the docket filing dates, however, Plaintiff’s objections 

are considered timely filed. These Motions will be denied as moot. Defendants also filed a Motion for 

Extension and despite never being ruled on, filed their objections on the requested date. That Motion 

(Doc. 32) is also denied as moot. 
2 

(Doc. 34 at 1). Plaintiff acknowledges that the Magistrate Judge addressed claim one (reporting 

staff misconduct to the parole panel), however, he argues that “the magistrate did not address 

claims 2 and 3 (Retaliation for being terminated and failure to complete the program) prior to 

recommending dismissal of the entire retaliation claim.” (Doc. 34 at 2). 

 The Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation grouped Plaintiff’s retaliation 

claims together and ultimately found that collateral estoppel precluded him from relitigating the 

issue again. In Plaintiff’s previous case, the Sixth Circuit found that Plaintiff’s First Amendment 

retaliation claim was properly dismissed because he had not engaged in protected conduct. That 

remains the case here with his new allegations in the Complaint. Plaintiff has failed to allege 

that he engaged in constitutionally protected conduct and therefore his retaliation claim fails. 

Plaintiff also objects to the dismissal of his Fourteenth Amendment claims on the basis 

that “there is no practical method of separating out what information was in the parole file before 

the July 2018 parole hearing.” The Magistrate Judge reasoned that “[t]he clock cannot be turned 

back to those parole denials to provide him with relief connected to a Fourteenth Amendment 

violation that might, might not, have occurred then.” (Doc. 31 at 18). The Court agrees with the 

Magistrate Judge that if Plaintiff were to prevail on this claim, the remedy would be correction of 

his current parole record and a new parole hearing, therefore dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims 

concerning the Parole Board’s pre-July 2018 decisions to deny him parole is justified. 

Finally, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s failure to consider his substantive due 

process claim. Plaintiff asserts that he raised this claim in his Complaint and in response to 

Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion. The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint and 

there is no enumerated count for violation of his substantive due process rights. Therefore, the 
3 

claim was not properly before the Court and there was no error by the Magistrate Judge in failing 

to address it. To the extent Plaintiff has pled such a claim, it will be adequately addressed with 

Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim. Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections are overruled. 

B. Defendants’ Objections to the Report and Recommendation 

 Defendants object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation of denial of dismissal on 

Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claims. Specifically, Defendants assert the Magistrate Judge 

applied the incorrect standard in expecting evidentiary support for Defendants’ arguments and 

that Plaintiff failed to allege a constitutional violation and has not met his burden of showing that 

he was denied “meaningful consideration of parole. (Doc. 37). 

 First, with respect to the discussion in the Report and Recommendation regarding 

reference to the record, documents in the parole file, or other evidentiary matters, the Court 

agrees that any such requirement is not appropriate for consideration of a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion. 

However, any such reference was harmless. 

 Next, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to show that he was denied a meaningful 

consideration of parole and therefore establishing a constitutional violation. The Court agrees 

that there is no constitutional or statutory right to release on parole. State ex rel. Henderson v. 

Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 81 Ohio St.3d 267, 268 (1998). However, the Court is presently 

only charged with consideration of whether Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts to maintain a 

claim. Here, Plaintiff has alleged that there may be substantive errors in his records and 

Defendants have not disputed this. Therefore, at this stage in the proceedings, the Magistrate 

Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff has sufficiently pled a claim for violation of his 

Fourteenth Amendment rights. Accordingly, Defendants’ objections are overruled. 
4 

 Therefore, for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, 

this Court finds that Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ objections are without merit and are hereby 

OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation, Document 31, is hereby ADOPTED and 

AFFIRMED. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED 

IN PART. It is hereby Ordered that: 

1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #22) be GRANTED in part, and Plaintiff’s FirstAmendment retaliation claim against Defendants Alice Handwerk, Ron Nelson, Jr., Tracy L. 

Reveal, Shirley A. Smith, and Ellen Venters be DISMISSED; Plaintiff’s claims against 

Defendant Mohr be DISMISSED; and Defendant Chrystal Alexander be DISMISSED as a 

party in this case; 

2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #22) be GRANTED, in part, and Plaintiff’s 

Fourteenth-Amendment claims concerning the decisions denying him release on parole before 

July 2018 be DISMISSED; 

3. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #22) be DENIED as to Plaintiff’s FourteenthAmendment claim concerning his parole record and the July 2018 decision denying him release 

on parole; 

4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, Deny, or Ignore Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #24) 

be DENIED; 

5. Defendants be ORDERED to respond to Plaintiff’s Request for Reconsideration and 

Permission for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. #27); and 

6. Plaintiff’s Request for a Report and Recommendation (Doc. #28) be DENIED as moot. 

The Clerk shall remove Documents 22, 24, 28, 31, 32, 34, 35, and 38 from the Court’s 

pending motions list. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ George C. Smith__________________ 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT