govinfo:USCOURTS-ohsd-2_26-cv-00114-2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Matthew Snyder,
Plaintiff,
V.
State of Ohio, et al.,
Defendants.

Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Silvain
OPINION AND ORDER
Matthew Snyder ("Plaintiff"), an Ohio prisoner proceeding without the
assistance of counsel and without the prepayment of fees, sues the State of
Ohio, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC"), ODRC
Director Annette Chambers-Smith ("Director Chambers-Smith"), Noble
Correctional Institution ("NCI"), NCI warden Jay Forshey ("Warden Forshey"),
and more than thirteen other ODRC employees under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and
Ohio law. See Compl., ECF No. 1.
The Magistrate Judge performed an initial screen of the Complaint
pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A and issued a Report and
Recommendation ("R&R") that recommends the Court dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint in full. R&R, ECF No. 7. Specifically, the R&R construes the
Complaint as alleging § 1983 claims based on violations of the Eighth
Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments and the First Amendment's
Case: 2:26-cv-00114-MHW-PBS Doc #: 13 Filed: 06/10/26 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
ban on retaliation. R&R 5, ECF No. 7. It also construes the Complaint as
asserting claims under Ohio law for medical malpractice and negligence. Id.
The R&R recommends dismissing all official-capacity claims for damages
as barred by sovereign immunity. 1 R&R 5-6, ECF No. 7. Moreover, it
recommends dismissing all claims (regardless of the relief sought) against the
State of Ohio, ODRC, and NCI for the same reason and for the additional reason
that neither the State nor any of these entities are "persons" for purposes of
§ 1983. Id. at 6-7. As for the individual Defendants, the R&R recommends
concluding that the Complaint lacks factual allegations concerning how each
Defendant violated Plaintiff's rights. Id. at 7-8 ("Plaintiff fails to satisfy these
basic pleading requirements because he merely lists multiple Defendants in the
caption of his Complaint without raising any factual allegations against each
individual Defendant. " (citing Compl., ECF No. 1)). That barred the individual-
capacity claims, and any official-capacity claims were barred because of
sovereign immunity. Finally, the R&R recommends declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. Id. at 8-9.
Plaintiff objects. Obj., ECF No. 10.
1 The R&R recommends dismissing the claims with prejudice, R&R 10, ECF No. 7, but
dismissals due to sovereign immunity must be without prejudice. See e.g., White's
Landing Fisheries, Inc. v. Ohio Dep't of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, 174
F.4th 493, 502 (6th Cir. 2026) ("Although we affirm the district court's dismissal of Koch's
takings and state law claims against Ohio and the state defendants based on sovereign
immunity, we reverse in part the district court's dismissal of Koch's claims with
prejudice. Because our grounds for affirmance is [sic] the district court's lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, Koch's claims should be dismissed without prejudice. " (citation
omitted)).

Case: 2:26-cv-00114-MHW-PBS Doc #: 13 Filed: 06/10/26 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the Court reviews de
novo those portions of the R&R to which Plaintiff properly objected. Having done
so, the Court finds the objections are meritless.
First, Plaintiff cites case law regarding when a corporation may be held
criminally liable under Ohio law, and he asks the Court to impose similar
constraints on liability for ODRC and NCI here. See Obj. 4, ECF No. 10.
This objection is overruled because this is a civil lawsuit. Plaintiff has
pleaded neither that any Defendant committed a state crime nor the existence of
a civil cause of action permitting Plaintiff to recover for the crime. Although there
are instances in which municipalities may be liable under § 1983, those
circumstances do not apply here, where State (rather than municipal) entities are
involved. Da//as \f. Chippewa Corr. Facility, No. 20-1941, 2022 WL 905857, at *3
(6th Cir. Mar. 1, 2022) ("To start, a plaintiff cannot pursue a § 1983 action against
a prison or a state agency that oversees a prison because neither is a 'person' as
provided in the statute but rather the state itself, which is entitled to sovereign
immunity .... " (citations omitted)).
Plaintiff next cites case law regarding organizational standing, Obj. 4-6,
ECF No. 10, but that case law is irrelevant because the R&R does not
recommend dismissal for lack of standing.
Plaintiff then cites an Illinois case for the proposition that Ohio statutory
immunity does not deprive this Court of subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's
state-law claims against the individual Defendants. Obj. 6, ECF No. 10 ("The

Case: 2:26-cv-00114-MHW-PBS Doc #: 13 Filed: 06/10/26 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
same would be construed as in Ohio. [sic]"). But this objection fails because the
R&R recommends declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-
law claims not because of the existence of state statutory immunity but because
of the Supreme Court's instruction that a federal court should generally decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction once it has dismissed all claims over which it
has original jurisdiction. R&R 8, ECF No. 7; United Mine Workers of Am. v.
Gibbs, 383 U. S. 715, 726 (1966).
Plaintiff also seems2 to invoke the Ex Parte Young exception to sovereign
immunity vis-a-vis his federal claims. See Obj. 7, ECF No. 10. But sovereign
immunity does not bar his individual-capacity claims, and he did not seek
injunctive relief in his Complaint, see Compl., ECF No. 1 , so that exception is
inapplicable.
To the extent that Plaintiff believes he adequately stated individual-
capacity, § 1983 claims for the violation of the Eighth Amendment, see Obj. 6,
ECF No. 10, the Court disagrees. True, "leaving an inmate in one's own vomit is
not proper procedure or a formulary act. " Obj. 6, ECF No. 10. But the problem
with Plaintiff's Complaint is not that he failed to allege the existence of a serious
medical need or a deliberate act-it is that he sued a slew of individual
Defendants without alleging which Defendant committed which act and how each
2 To the extent Plaintiff invokes an exception to state-created immunity, the objection
fails for the reason addressed above: the Court declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state claims.

Case: 2:26-cv-00114-MHW-PBS Doc #: 13 Filed: 06/10/26 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Defendant was personally involved in the deprivation of rights. Plaintiff should be
able to cure that deficiency by re-filing the Complaint with more detailed factual
allegations.
Finally, Plaintiff also objects to the Magistrate Judge's denial of
appointment of counsel. Obj. 7-8, ECF No. 10. Plaintiff argues that most of the
culpable medical staff employees have left NCI, that he is indigent and visually
impaired, and that he lacks the required legal knowledge to successfully litigate
this case. Id.
This Court reviews the denial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72(a), and the Court will not modify or set the order aside unless it was clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. The Magistrate Judge's denial was neither based
on a clearly erroneous finding of fact nor was it contrary to law. Because the
Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety, there is no reason to appoint
counsel at this stage. All Plaintiff need do to re-file the Complaint is to allege,
with specificity, which individual Defendant performed which act (or omission)
and demonstrate how those acts (or omissions) violated Plaintiff's constitutional
rights under the First and Eighth Amendments. Should Plaintiff re-file the case,
the Court may re-review its decision regarding counsel at any point in the
renewed litigation.
For the above reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections,
ADOPTS the R&R, and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's

Case: 2:26-cv-00114-MHW-PBS Doc #: 13 Filed: 06/10/26 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Complaint. Should Plaintiff refile the Complaint, he is DIRECTED to list the new
Complaint as related to this case on his civil cover sheet.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MCHAELH. WA ON, JU GE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CaseNo. 2:26-cv-114 Page 6 of 6
Case: 2:26-cv-00114-MHW-PBS Doc #: 13 Filed: 06/10/26 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight