[Cite as White v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2020-Ohio-2842.]

QUAN JALIL WHITE 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF 

REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION 

 Defendant

Case No. 2019-01013AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

{¶1} Quan Jalil White (“plaintiff”), an inmate, filed a complaint against 

defendant, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”). Plaintiff related 

on July 1, 2019, he was placed in segregation while housed at defendant’s Warren 

Correctional Institution (“WCI”). Plaintiff alleges that he informed the guard transferring 

him that he needed an ADA compliant cell, but the guard did not place him in an ADA 

compliant cell. Plaintiff states that as a result of this placement he fell in his cell while 

attempting to use the toilet and suffered from a concussion. Plaintiff also alleges 

another violation of the ADA from an incident that occurred on July 4, 2019, when he 

claims he was denied access to an ADA compliant shower. Plaintiff seeks damages in 

the amount of $10,000.00 for his concussion, emotional distress, continuing head and 

neck pain, and sleep issues. Plaintiff was not required to submit the $25.00 filing fee. 

{¶2} Defendant submitted an Investigation Report denying liability in this 

matter. Defendant confirms that plaintiff was placed in restrictive housing on July 1, 

2019. Defendant states that plaintiff was initially placed in a non-ADA compliant cell 

until other inmates were moved out of the ADA compliant cell and the guard could 

confirm plaintiff’s qualifications for an ADA accommodation. Defendant avers that this is 

its normal procedure. The institution’s records confirm that plaintiff was moved to an 

ADA compliant segregation cell on the same day that he was moved into restrictive 
Case No. 2019-01013AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION 

housing. Defendant submitted plaintiff’s medical records stemming from this incident. 

These records show that plaintiff was taken to medical on July 1, 2019, at 12:43PM 

where a nurse examined him for signs of a possible fall and symptoms of a concussion. 

The nurse conducted a neurological exam and plaintiff responded normally. The nurse 

did not observe any signs that the plaintiff had fallen. Plaintiff rested in medical and was 

given water and ibuprofen. Plaintiff was instructed to return to medical if he vomited or 

if his symptoms worsened. Defendant’s medical records show that plaintiff returned to 

medical at 2:15PM on the same day because he vomited. At that time, the nurse 

examined him again and saw no changes from the previous examination. Plaintiff was 

prescribed Tylenol three times per day for three days. Defendant contends that 

plaintiff’s claim is not an ADA claim but rather a complaint about the conditions of 

plaintiff’s confinement and that this court does not have jurisdiction. To the extent 

plaintiff asserts a medical negligence claim, defendant denies liability. 

{¶3} Plaintiff submitted a response to defendant’s investigation report. Plaintiff 

requested leave from the court to obtain video from the prison from July 1, 2019 and 

July 4, 2019. Plaintiff requested various medical records from the institution. Further, 

plaintiff states that he does not wish to bring a negligence claim against defendant. 

Plaintiff also cites a ODRC policy about inappropriate supervision. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

{¶4} “To prove a violation of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must establish that: 

(1) he or she is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) the defendant is subject to the 

ADA; and (3) the plaintiff was denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the 

defendant’s services, programs, or activities or was otherwise discriminated against by 

the defendant, by reason of the plaintiff’s disability.” Wolfe v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & 

Corr., 10th Dist. No. 11AP-346, 2011-Ohio-6825, ¶ 16, citing Franks v. Ohio Dept. of 

Rehab. & Corr., 195 Ohio App. 3d 114, 2011-Ohio-2048, 958 N.E.2d 1253 (10th Dist.); 

See also Pennsylvania Dept. of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 209-10, 118 S. Ct. 1952, 
Case No. 2019-01013AD -3- MEMORANDUM DECISION 

141 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1998) (Title II of the ADA applies to state prisons and prisoners, and 

prisons cannot use an inmate’s disability as a reason to bar that inmate from 

participating in or receiving the benefits of recreation, medical services, or education 

and vocational programs.). A defendant discriminates against a qualified individual with 

a disability if it denies him or her a reasonable accommodation. Wolfe at ¶ 16. 

{¶5} The first requirement of the ADA is that plaintiff must be a qualified 

individual with a disability. “Under the ADA, a ‘qualified individual with a disability’ is ‘an 

individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, 

policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation 

barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility 

requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities 

provided by a public entity.’ Further, a ‘disability’ is ‘a physical or mental impairment 

that substantially limits one or more major life activities’ of the individual. ‘Major life 

activities include, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, 

sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, 

concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.’” (Citation omitted.) Franks at 

¶ 19, quoting 42 U.S.C. 12131(2), 42 U.S.C. 12102(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. 12102(2)(A). 

{¶6} Further, “[s]everal factors should be considered in determining whether an 

impairment ‘substantially limits’ a major life activity: (1) the nature and severity of the 

impairment, (2) the duration or expected duration of the impairment, and (3) the 

permanent or long-term impact, or the expected permanent or long term impact of, or 

resulting from, the impairment.” Jurczak v. J & R Schugel Trucking Co., 10th Dist. No. 

03AP-451, 2003-Ohio-7039, ¶ 23. 

{¶7} Here, plaintiff did not provide any evidence that he is a qualified individual 

with a disability. Plaintiff did not identify in his complaint or his response to defendant’s 

investigation report what disability he has or how that impacts his daily life and major life 

activities. 
Case No. 2019-01013AD -4- MEMORANDUM DECISION 

{¶8} The second requirement of the ADA is for plaintiff to present evidence that 

he was denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a service, program, or 

activity or was otherwise discriminated against by defendant because of his disability. 

Plaintiff’s complaint was that he was not placed in an ADA segregation cell and that he 

was not allowed to have an ADA shower; plaintiff has not identified a service, program, 

or activity that he was denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit from or provided 

evidence that he was otherwise discriminated against. 

{¶9} Plaintiff has not met the burden of proof to sustain his ADA claim. 

{¶10} In addition, prison regulations, including those contained in the Ohio 

Administrative Code, “are primarily designed to guide correctional officials in prison 

administration rather than to confer rights on inmates.” State ex rel. Larkins v. 

Wilkinson, 79 Ohio St.3d 477, 479, 1997-Ohio-139, 683 N.E.2d 1139, citing Sandlin v. 

Conner 515 U.S. 472, 481-482, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 132 L. Ed. 2d 418 (1995). Additionally, 

this court has held that “even if defendant had violated the Ohio Administrative Code, no 

cause of action would exist in this court. A breach of internal regulations in itself does 

not constitute negligence.” Williams v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. and Corr., 67 Ohio Misc.2d 

1, 3, 643 N.E.2d 1182 (10th Dist. 1993). Accordingly, to the extent that plaintiff alleges 

that ODRC somehow violated internal prison regulations and the Ohio Administrative 

Code, he fails to state a claim for relief. See Sharp v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Ct. of Cl. 

No. 2008- 02410-AD, 2008-Ohio-7064, ¶ 5. 

{¶11} The credibility of witnesses and the weight attributable to their testimony 

are primarily matters for the trier of fact. State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 

N.E.2d 212 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. The court is free to believe or 

disbelieve, all or any part of each witness’s testimony. State v. Antill, 176 Ohio St. 61, 

197 N.E.2d 548 (1964). The court finds plaintiff’s statement not particularly persuasive. 

{¶12} Pursuant to Rule 7(E) of the Local Rules of the Court of Claims, 

“Discovery procedures shall not be initiated in administrative determinations without the 
Case No. 2019-01013AD -5- MEMORANDUM DECISION 

permission of the clerk.” Upon review of plaintiff’s request for discovery in his response 

to defendant’s investigation report, the court notes that plaintiff did not seek the 

permission of the clerk when filing his motion. And, in light of this decision, the court 

finds that discovery is not warranted in this case. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion shall be 

DENIED. 

{¶13} Further, concerning plaintiff’s access to his medical records, “R.C. 

5120.21(C)(2) places limitations on an inmate’s access to medical records.” Nicely v. 

Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 09AP-187, 2009-Ohio-4386, ¶ 8. 

“R.C. 5120.21(C)(2) states that the inmate’s medical records shall be available for 

review on two conditions. One is that the inmate make a signed written request for the 

records, and the other is that his request be accompanied by a written request of an 

attorney or physician designated by the inmate.” Goings v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 

10th Dist. No. 90AP-1041, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 2527 (May 28, 1991). There is no 

indication that plaintiff has made a written request for his medical records accompanied 

by a written request of an attorney or physician. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to a 

copy of his medical records. 

{¶14} Therefore, judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. 

QUAN JALIL WHITE 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF 

REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION 

 Defendant

Case No. 2019-01013AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE 

DETERMINATION 
Case No. 2019-01013AD -6- MEMORANDUM DECISION 

{¶15} Having considered all the evidence in the claim file, and for the reasons 

set forth in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered 

in favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. 

 

 DANIEL R. BORCHERT 

 Deputy Clerk 

Filed 3/26/20 

Sent to S.C. reporter 5/7/20