Krzywkowski v. Mohr et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
GRADY KRZYWKOWSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.
GARY MOHR, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action 2:24-cv-3902
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, an Ohio inmate proceeding without the assistance of counsel, sues a number of
employees of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction for breach of a settlement
agreement protecting Plaintiff’s religious accommodations and for retaliation in violation of the
First Amendment. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 104.) For the reasons below, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motion be
DENIED.
I. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, “[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if
the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “The moving party has the initial
burden of proving that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and the court must draw all
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Stansberry v. Air
Wisconsin Airlines Corp., 651 F.3d 482, 486 (6th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations omitted); cf.
Case: 2:24-cv-03902-MHW-CMV Doc #: 144 Filed: 02/19/26 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2) (providing that if a party “fails to properly address another party’s
assertion of fact” then the court may “consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion”).
The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to “set forth specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986).
“The evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn
in his favor.” Id. at 255 (citation omitted). “The nonmovant must, however, do more than simply
show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, . . . there must be evidence
upon which a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the non-moving party to create a
genuine dispute.” Lee v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cty., 432 F. App’x 435, 441 (6th
Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)
(requiring a party maintaining that a fact is genuinely disputed to “cit[e] to particular parts of
materials in the record”). “When a motion for summary judgment is properly made and
supported and the nonmoving party fails to respond with a showing sufficient to establish an
essential element of its case, summary judgment is appropriate.” Stansberry, 651 F.3d at 486
(citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986)).
II. 	ANALYSIS
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached a settlement agreement concerning Plaintiff’s
religious accommodations and transferred him to a different facility, both to avoid their
contractual obligations and to retaliate against Plaintiff for exercising his First Amendment
rights.1 (Am. Compl., ECF No. 5.)
On August 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 104.)
Plaintiff’s Motion relies entirely on factual admissions that Plaintiff contends Defendants made
1 The undersigned incorporates by reference the more detailed recitation of the facts underlying
Plaintiff’s claims contained in the October 22, 2024 Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 33).
Case: 2:24-cv-03902-MHW-CMV Doc #: 144 Filed: 02/19/26 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
when they failed to timely respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 36(b). However, Defendants assert, and Plaintiff does not contest, that
Defendants eventually served their responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions. (Defs.’
Mem. in Opp’n, ECF No. 106; Pl.’s Reply, ECF No. 126.) Under these circumstances, the Court
permits withdrawal of Defendant’s admissions because “it would promote the presentation of the
merits of the action” and “the court is not persuaded that it would prejudice the requesting party
in maintaining or defending the action on the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b); see also Leak v.
Lexington Ins. Co., 641 F. Supp. 2d 671, 674 (S.D. Ohio 2009) (“Allowing Plaintiffs to withdraw
their admissions will promote the presentation of the merits of the action and, as a general rule,
the Court prefers to decide a case on its merits rather than on a technicality.”).
Moreover, the Court recently afforded Plaintiff additional time to meet and confer with
Defendants about any remaining deficiencies in their discovery responses before having to
respond to Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. (Dec. 17, 2025 Order, ECF No.
138.) The Court therefore cannot discern any prejudice that would befall Plaintiff by permitting
withdrawal of any facts deemed admitted under Rule 36(b).
Because Plaintiff points to no evidence in the record other than Defendants’ now-
withdrawn admissions, Plaintiff cannot establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact
and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment must be denied.
III. 	DISPOSITION
For these reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 104) be DENIED.
Case: 2:24-cv-03902-MHW-CMV Doc #: 144 Filed: 02/19/26 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen
(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those
specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with
supporting authority for the objection(s). A District Judge of this Court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a District Judge of this Court may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive
further evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report
and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of
the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura
CHELSEY M. VASCURA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 2:24-cv-03902-MHW-CMV Doc #: 144 Filed: 02/19/26 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>