Thomas, III v. C/O Lewis et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
TEDDY G. THOMAS, III.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
C/O J. LEWIS, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:25-cv-14
Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND FINDING
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (DOCS. 20, 26, 31) AS MOOT
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s objections (Docs. 20, 26, 31) to orders issued by
Elizabeth P. Deavers related to certain non-dispositive matters. Plaintiff, pro se, Teddy G,
Thomas, III, an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (“SOCF”), filed this civil
rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Cynthia Davis, the warden at SOCF, and several
correction officers (“C/O”), who are identified only as C/O J. Lewis, C/O Murray, Captain
Gary Haywood, LT. B. Barney, and SGT. A. Cooper., claiming that his constitutional rights
were violated. Magistrate Judge Deavers issued a Report and Recommendation, on March
20, 2025, proposing findings and recommending that Defendants’ dispositive motion be
granted in part and denied in part, to which none of the parties filed timely objections. (Doc.
7)
That Report and Recommendation recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint be
DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), with the exception of
Plaintiff’s First, Fourth, and Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Lewis and
Murray and his Eighth Amendment, deliberate indifference claim against Defendant
Case: 1:25-cv-00014-JPH-SCS Doc #: 54 Filed: 01/20/26 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Haywood. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that Plaintiff be allowed to proceed
with his state law claims against Defendants Lewis, Murray, and Haywood. None of the
parties in this proceeding filed objections to the R&R’s proposed findings and
recommendations related to the Magistrate Judge’s rulings on Defendants’ dispositive
motions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). These matters are now ripe for consideration under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(a) and (b).
I. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDERS
a. DISPOSITIVE MATTERS
As noted, no objections were filed with respect to the Magistrate Judge’s proposed
findings and recommendation that Defendants’ motion to dismiss certain claims be granted.
Having carefully reviewed the comprehensive findings and conclusions of the Magistrate
Judge and finding no clear error, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation in its entirety. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (advisory committee notes from 1983
amendment) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there
is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation”); see e.g.,
Roane v. Warden of Corr. Reception Ctr., No. 2:22-cv-2768, 2022 WL 16535903, at *1 (S.D. Ohio
Oct. 28, 2022).
Accordingly, the Court orders that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 6) be DISMISSED
with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), with the exception of Plaintiff’s First,
Fourth, and Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Lewis and Murray and his Eighth
Amendment, deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Haywood. At this juncture in
the proceedings, Plaintiff may also proceed with his state law claims against Defendants
Lewis, Murray, and Haywood. For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation
Case: 1:25-cv-00014-JPH-SCS Doc #: 54 Filed: 01/20/26 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court certifies that an appeal of this Order would
lack an arguable basis in law or in fact and thus would not be taken in good faith. The Court
accordingly DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. In accordance with Fed. R.
App. P. 24(a)(5), Plaintiff remains free to file a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma
pauperis in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6th
Cir. 1999).
b. OBJECTIONS TO NON-DISPOSITIVE MATTERS
After entering the Report and Recommendation on the dispositive matters, the
Magistrate Judge issued two other orders related to non-dispositive matters. On May 27,
2025, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers issued an order (Doc. 14) denying Plaintiff’s
motion to answer the Complaint. And on June 11, 2026, Magistrate Judge Deavers issued an
order (Doc. 25) directing Plaintiff to submit a service copy of the Complaint and a properly
completed summons form within thirty days. Plaintiff filed objections to both these non-
dispositive orders. See Docs. 20, 26, 31.
When a party objects to a Magistrate Judge’s order that addresses a non-dispositive
matter, the court must “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or
is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Here, however, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s
objections are moot. All of Plaintiff’s objections relate to Magistrate Judge Deaver’s efforts to
effectuate proper procedure for the summons delivered to Defendant C/O J. Lewis. But the
summons has since been properly served, and Defendant Lewis has filed an answer (Doc.
46).
Case: 1:25-cv-00014-JPH-SCS Doc #: 54 Filed: 01/20/26 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 20, 2026
Jeffery P. Hopkins
United States District Judge
Case: 1:25-cv-00014-JPH-SCS Doc #: 54 Filed: 01/20/26 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>