Breach v. Prison Health Services, Inc. et al (INMATE1)

Filing 796

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that plaintiff's 479 objection to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed on February 21, 2008 is OVERRULED; that plaintiff's 532 Written Objections to Discovery Requests to the Recommendation of th e Magistrate Judge filed on March 13, 2008 is OVERRULED; that plaintiff's 551 Written Objections to Discovery Request to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed on March 24, 2008 is OVERRULED; that plaintiff's 552 Written Objec tions to Discovery Requests to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed on March 24, 2008 is OVERRULED; that plaintiff's 620 Written Objections to Court Order [sic] 601 & 602 to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed on May 5, 2008 is OVERRULED; that plaintiff's 621 Motion to Strike filed on May 5, 2008, is DENIED. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 5/8/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(cc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION M A R C E L L U S BREACH, #203767, P la in tif f , v. P R IS O N HEALTH SERVICES, et al., D e f e n d a n ts. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C A S E NO. 2:06-cv-1133-MEF

M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER I . INTRODUCTION T h e issue in this case is whether Alabama Department of Corrections ("ADOC") d e f e n d a n ts were deliberately indifferent to providing Plaintiff medical care for a hernia. Before the Court are several pending objections and a motion, including: (1) Plaintiff's W ritte n Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order (Doc. #479), filed on February 21, 2008; (2 ) Plaintiff's Written Objections to Discovery Requests (Doc. #532), filed on March 13, 2 0 0 8 ; (3) Plaintiff's Written Objections to Discovery Request (Doc. #551), filed on M a rc h 24, 2008; (4) Plaintiff's Written Objections to Discovery Requests (Doc. #552), f ile d on March 24, 2008; (5) Plaintiff's Written Objections to Court Order [sic] 601 & 6 0 2 (Doc. #620), filed on May 5, 2008; and (6) Plaintiff's Second ­ Notice of Objection to Admissibility of Evidence (Doc. #621), filed on May 5, 2008. The Court will discuss e a c h of Plaintiff's objections and his motion in turn.

II. STANDARD In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7 2 (a ), this Court reviews the objection, the Magistrate Judge's Order, and all submissions re la te d to that Order to determine whether the Magistrate Judge's Order is clearly e rro n e o u s or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). III. DISCUSSION 1 . Plaintiff's Written Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order (Doc. #479) The Magistrate Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. #458) in an Order (D o c . #460) because it found that the information sought by Plaintiff was irrelevant to the is su e before the Court. In Plaintiff's Written Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order (Doc. # 4 7 9 ) ("Objection #479"), filed on February 21, 2008, Plaintiff objected to Magistrate J u d g e Moorer's Order (Doc. #460) on grounds that the information Plaintiff sought was re le v a n t to the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) states that discovery is limited to materials which are re le v a n t to the claim before the court. The issue before the Court is whether ADOC d e f e n d a n ts ' refusal to provide surgery for Plaintiff's hernia constituted deliberate in d if f e re n c e . In his Motion to Compel, Plaintiff sought Louisiana medical records to p ro v e supervisory liability. See Doc. #459, pg. 2. Plaintiff, however, failed to show how L o u is ia n a medical records are relevant to the claim pending before this Court. Therefore, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Court's Order and Objection (Doc. #479) is due to be OVERRULED. 2

2. Plaintiff's Written Objections to Discovery Requests (Doc. #532) In Plaintiff's Written Objections to Discovery Requests (Doc. #532) ("Objection # 5 3 2 " ), filed on March 13, 2008, Plaintiff objected to Magistrate Judge Moorer's Order (D o c #510) denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. #462). In his Motion to Compel, P la in tif f sought to discover Defendant Dr. George Lyrene's "methodology" as a p h ys ic ia n . As discussed above, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) states that discovery is limited to m a te ria ls which are relevant to the claim before the court. Dr. Lyrene is not Plaintiff's tre a tin g physician, has not been involved in the decision whether Plaintiff needs surgery, a n d has never examined the Plaintiff. Therefore, the information sought by Plaintiff is irre le v a n t. The Objection (Doc. #532) is due to be OVERRULED. 3 . Plaintiff's Written Objections to Discovery Request (Doc. #551) In Plaintiff's Written Objections to Discovery Request (Doc. #551) ("Objection # 5 5 1 " ), filed on March 24, 2008, Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Moorer's Order (D o c . #534) denying his Motion for Sanctions (Doc. #522). In Objection #551, Plaintiff a rg u e s that Defendants' continue to "stonewall discovery." See Doc. #551, pg. 3. In D e f e n d a n ts ' response (Doc. #529), Bradford Adams counters that he has answered all of P la in tif f 's relevant discovery requests and produced all records in his possession p e rta in in g to Plaintiff's treatment. Upon consideration of Plaintiff's objection, D e f e n d a n ts ' response, and Magistrate Judge Moorer's order, Objection #551 is due to be OVERRULED.

3

4. Plaintiff's Written Objections to Discovery Requests (Doc. #552) In Plaintiff's Written Objections to Discovery Requests (Doc. #552) ("Objection # 5 5 2 " ), filed on March 24, 2008, Plaintiff objects to three Magistrate Judge orders, Docs. # 511, 535, and 536. The Court will take up each of Magistrate Judge Moorer's orders a n d Plaintiff's objections in turn. A. Magistrate Judge Moorer's Order (Doc. #511) In Magistrate Judge Moorer's Order (Doc. #511) entered on March 5, 2008, Judge M o o re r denied Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. #493) filed on February 27, 2008 b e c a u s e Plaintiff did not seek permission from the Court to file the discovery requests at is su e . Previously, the Magistrate Judge had ordered that any discovery request filed after N o v e m b e r 20, 2007 would be untimely. (Doc. #178). Upon consideration of the M a g is tra te Judge's Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, the Magistrate Judge's O rd e r setting a discovery deadline, and Plaintiff's objection this Court finds that P la in tif f 's Motion to Compel (Doc. #493) was properly denied. B. Magistrate Judge Moorer's Order (Doc. #535) M a g is tra te Judge Moorer denied Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. # 5 3 0 ) in Order entered on March 14, 2008. (Doc. #535). In Objection #552, Plaintiff a rg u e d that this Court should vacate three previous Magistrate Court orders (Docs. # 5105 1 3 ) denying Plaintiff's motions to compel. Magistrate Judge Moorer denied Plaintiff's m o tio n s in light of the November discovery deadline and "the voluminous responses to d is c o v e ry filed by the defendants, including the documents and information relevant to 4

the issue pending before this Court." (Doc. #535). This Court agrees that Plaintiff's m o tio n s to compel (Doc. #510-513) were properly denied. C. Magistrate Judge Moorer's Order (Doc. #536) In his Order entered on March 14, 2008 (Doc #. 536), Magistrate Judge Moorer d e n ie d Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections (Doc. #530) because P la in tif f failed to present any basis for such an extension. In Objection #552, Plaintiff s till did not present any basis for an extension of time. Therefore, this Court finds that P la in tif f 's Motion for Extension of Time was properly denied. D . Conclusion In Objection #552, Plaintiff objected to three Magistrate Judge orders, Doc. # 511, 5 3 5 , and 536. Upon consideration of Plaintiff's objections, Defendants' responses, and th e Magistrate Court's orders, this Court agrees that Plaintiff's motions were properly d e n ie d and Motion #552 is due to be OVERRULED. 5 . Plaintiff's Written Objections to Court Order [sic] 601 & 602 (Doc. #620) In Plaintiff's Written Objections to Court Order [sic] 601 & 602 (Doc. #620) (" O b je c tio n #620"), filed on May 5, 2008, Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Moorer's O rd e rs Doc. #601 and #602.

A. Magistrate Judge Moorer's Order (Doc. #601) In the Magistrate Court's Order entered on April 29, 2008, (Doc. #601), the M a g is tra te Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Doc. #599) because Defendants had 5

already submitted the requested documents in response to a previous discovery request. In his Motion to Strike, Plaintiff argued that certain evidence submitted by defendant Dr. W illia m Hobbs was inadmissible hearsay and not authenticated. Defendants submitted th e evidence at the Court's request for discovery purposes and not for summary judgment p u rp o s e s . (Doc. # 565.) Evidence sought in discovery need not be admissible. See Fed. R . Civ. P. 26(b)(1) ("[T]he court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject m a tte r involved in the action...[r]elevant information need not be admissible at the trial if th e discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible e v id e n c e ." ) Therefore, the inadmissibility of discovery materials is not a valid ground for a court to strike materials from the record. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Doc. #599) was p ro p e rly denied. B. Magistrate Judge Moorer's Order (Doc. #602) In its Order filed on April 29, 2008 (Doc. #602), the Magistrate Judge denied th irte e n of Plaintiff's motions (Docs. # 231, 395, 463, 464, 476, 480, 481, 538, 540, 541, 5 5 9 , 560 & 561). In Objection #620, Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Moorer's O rd e r (Doc. #602) on the grounds that defendant Dr. William Hobbs's medical license e x p ire d on December 31, 2006. Plaintiff argues he is prejudiced by the evidence that Dr. W illia m Hobbs submitted because it is inadmissible evidence. Doc. #620, pg. 2, 4. In a d d itio n , Plaintiff requests that Dr. Hobbs's evidence be stricken from the record. As d is c u s se d above, evidence sought in discovery need not be admissible so long as it is re a s o n a b ly calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6

26(b)(1). Therefore, Dr. Hobbs's submitted evidence is not due to be stricken and this C o u rt finds that Objection #620 is due to be OVERRULED. 6 . Plaintiff's Second ­ Notice of Objection to Admissibility of Evidence (Doc. #621) In Plaintiff's Second ­ Notice of Objection to Admissibility of Evidence (Doc. # 6 2 1 ), which the Court construes as a Motion to Strike ("Motion #621"), filed on May 5, 2 0 0 8 , Plaintiff objected to an affidavit filed by Dr. William Hobbs. Plaintiff again argued th a t Dr. Hobbs's evidence is inadmissible because Dr. Hobbs is no longer a licensed p h ys ic ia n . Plaintiff does not object to a Magistrate Court order in Motion #621. Instead, P la in tif f cites law that a court can only consider admissible evidence on a motion for s u m m a r y judgment. Doc. #621, pg. 2 (emphasis added). However, Dr. Hobb's affidavit w a s submitted as part of a Special Report and Answer in response to the Magistrate C o u rt's request. (Doc. #144). Defendants did not submit evidence to support a summary ju d g m e n t motion. Therefore, this Court finds that Motion #621 is due to be DENIED. I V . CONCLUSION F o r the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion and Order, it is hereby O R D E R E D that (1 ) Plaintiff's objection (Doc. #479) to the Recommendation of the Magistrate J u d g e filed on February 21, 2008 is OVERRULED; (2 ) Plaintiff's Written Objections to Discovery Requests (Doc. #532) to the R e c o m m e n d a tio n of the Magistrate Judge filed on March 13, 2008 is OVERRULED; (3) Plaintiff's Written Objections to Discovery Request (Doc. #551) to the 7

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed on March 24, 2008 is OVERRULED; (4 ) Plaintiff's Written Objections to Discovery Requests (Doc. #552) to the R e c o m m e n d a tio n of the Magistrate Judge filed on March 24, 2008 is OVERRULED; (5) Plaintiff's Written Objections to Court Order [sic] 601 & 602 (Doc. #620) to th e Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed on May 5, 2008 is OVERRULED; (6) Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Doc. #621), filed on May 5, 2008, is DENIED. DONE this the 8th day of May, 2009. /s/ Mark E. Fuller CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8