Fitts v. Cool

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JONATHAN DARNELL FITTS,
Plaintiff,
v.
LT. CRABTREE, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:24-cv-1040
Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Order and Report and Recommendation issued by
the Magistrate Judge on October 2, 2025. 	(ECF No. 16.) 	Plaintiff Jonathan Darnell Fitts is a
prisoner at the Ross Correctional Institution (RCI) in Chillicothe, Ohio and filed this civil rights
lawsuit pro se against eleven RCI officials (Warden Williams Cool, Lt. Crabtree, Lt. Sexton, C.O.
Gear, C.O. Penix, C.O. Lowry, and John Doe Officers 1–5) in their individual and official
capacities. (ECF No. 13.) Mr. Fitts requests monetary and injunctive relief. (Id. PageID 66.)
After reviewing this case on an initial screen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and
1915A(b), the Magistrate Judge construed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as advancing the
following claims: federal civil conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, state civil conspiracy under
Ohio law, and cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Article I, Section 9, of the Ohio Constitution. (ECF No. 16, PageID 76.)
As explained by the Magistrate Judge, Mr. Fitts alleges that he was sprayed with Oleoresin
Capsicum (“OC”) mace without provocation and then taken from his cell to health services and
the captain’s office with his hands cuffed behind his back. (ECF No. 13, PageID 64; ECF No. 16,
PageID 75.) Mr. Fitts alleges that Defendant Crabtree, Defendant Sexton, and eight corrections
Case: 2:24-cv-01040-EAS-CHG Doc #: 17 Filed: 11/04/25 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
officers wearing gloves (all of whom are named as Defendants) were in the captain’s office. (ECF
No. 13, PageID 64; ECF No. 16, PageID 75–76.) 	Defendant Sexton allegedly nodded to the
officers to signal them to assault Mr. Fitts. (ECF No. 13, PageID 64; ECF No. 16, PageID 76.)
Mr. Fitts alleges that Defendant John Doe Officer 2 held his legs while Defendants Gear, Penix,
Lowry, and four other John Doe Officer Defendants punched him in the face and body. (ECF No.
13, PageID 64; ECF No. 16, PageID 76.) Defendant Crabtree also allegedly sprayed Mr. Fitts in
the face with OC mace. (ECF No. 13, PageID 64; ECF No. 16, PageID 76.) Mr. Fitts claims that
he suffered numerous injuries and that Defendant Crabtree told him to “deal with it.” (ECF No.
13, PageID 64; ECF No. 16, PageID 76.)
The Magistrate Judge concluded that Mr. Fitts should be allowed to proceed on his federal
civil conspiracy and Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claims against Defendants
Crabtree, Gear, Sexton, Penix, Lowry, and John Doe Officers 1–5 in their individual capacities
(for monetary damages and injunctive relief) and their official capacities (for injunctive relief
only). (ECF No. 16, PageID 76, 79–80.)
The Magistrate Judge made no recommendation as to Mr. Fitts’s state-law claims against
Defendants Crabtree, Gear, Sexton, Penix, Lowry and John Doe Officers 1–5 and noted that the
Court will determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 later in the proceedings. (Id. PageID 77.)
The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss Mr. Fitts’s remaining claims.
(Id. PageID 77–80.) 	First, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss without
prejudice the federal claims against Warden Cool because Mr. Fitts did not allege that Warden
Cool was personally involved in the events underlying his claims. 	(Id. PageID 77–78.) 	The
Magistrate Judge explained that “[i]n order to find supervisory personnel liable, a plaintiff must
Case: 2:24-cv-01040-EAS-CHG Doc #: 17 Filed: 11/04/25 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
allege that the supervisors were somehow personally involved in the unconstitutional activity of a
subordinate, . . . or at least acquiesced in the alleged unconstitutional activity of a subordinate.”
(Id. (quoting Wingo v. Tennessee Dep’t of Corr., 499 F. App’x 453, 455 (6th Cir. 2012) (per
curiam)).) 	In addition, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against Warden Cool because “[w]ith any
federal anchor gone, supplemental jurisdiction over the residual state claims disappears as well.”
(Id. (quoting Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 39 (2025)).)
Second, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss with prejudice Mr. Fitts’s
claims against Defendants Crabtree, Gear, Sexton, Penix, Lowry, and John Doe Officers 1–5 in
their official capacities for monetary damages. 	(Id. PageID 78–79.) 	The Magistrate Judge
explained that the Eleventh Amendment immunizes these Defendants from being sued in their
official capacities for monetary damages. (Id. (citing Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 289 (6th
Cir. 2010)).)
Once a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation, the relevant statute provides:
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file
written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by
rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 	The failure to file written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation waives a de novo determination by the district court of any issues addressed in
the report and recommendation. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813, 814–15 (6th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 474
U.S. 140 (1985); see also United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981).
The 	parties 	were 	advised 	of 	their 	right 	to 	object 	to 	the 	Order 	and 	Report 	and
Recommendation and of the consequences of failing to do so. 	(ECF No. 16, PageID 82.) 	No
Case: 2:24-cv-01040-EAS-CHG Doc #: 17 Filed: 11/04/25 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
objections to the Order and Report and Recommendation were filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge’s Order and Report
and Recommendation. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff MAY PROCEED at this juncture on his claims
of civil conspiracy under Section 1983 and Ohio law and cruel and unusual punishment in violation
of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9, of the Ohio
Constitution against Defendants Crabtree, Gear, Sexton, Penix, Lowry, and John Doe Officers 1–
5 in their individual capacities (for monetary damages and injunctive relief) and their official
capacities (for injunctive relief only). 	(Id. PageID 81.) 	The Court DISMISSES WITHOUT
PREJUDICE 	all 	of 	Plaintiff’s 	claims 	against 	Warden 	Cool 	and 	DISMISSES 	WITH
PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages against Defendants Crabtree, Gear, Sexton,
Penix, Lowry, and John Doe Officers 1–5 in their official capacity.
Further, the Court certifies that an appeal of this Order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s
Order and Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3).
This case remains open.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11/4/2025 	s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
DATE 	EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 2:24-cv-01040-EAS-CHG Doc #: 17 Filed: 11/04/25 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>