Mathis v. Billups et al (INMATE1)(CONSENT)

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Terry F. Moorer on 2/18/2014. (wcl, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
RAYMOND MATHIS, #140252,
Plaintiff,
v.

PHYLLIS BILLUPS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:11-CV-497-TFM
[WO]

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on a complaint filed by Raymond
Mathis [“Mathis”], an indigent state inmate and frequent litigant before this court. In the instant
complaint, Mathis challenges the adequacy of medical treatment provided to him for hypertension
during his confinement at the Draper Correctional Facility. Complaint Doc. No. 1 at 3.
Pursuant to the orders of this court, the defendants filed written reports supported by relevant
evidentiary materials in which they address the claim presented by Mathis. The reports and
evidentiary materials refute the self-serving, conclusory allegations presented by Mathis in the
complaint. Specifically, the medical records compiled contemporaneously with the treatment
provided by health care personnel to Mathis indicate that the defendants did not act with deliberate
indifference to Mathis’ condition; instead, the undisputed evidentiary materials filed by the
defendants establish that attending health care personnel thoroughly examined Mathis regarding his
complaints of high blood pressure, closely monitored his condition, routinely evaluated the nature
of his complaints and rendered medical treatment, including prescribing various types of medication,
pursuant to their professional judgment in an effort to stabilize his blood pressure.

In light of the foregoing, the court issued an order directing Mathis to file a response to the
defendants’ written reports. Order of August 3, 2011 - Doc. No. 25. The order advised Mathis that
his failure to respond to the report would be treated by the court “as an abandonment of the claims
set forth in the complaint and as a failure to prosecute this action.” Id. at 1 (emphasis in
original). Additionally, the order “specifically cautioned [the plaintiff] that [his failure] to file
a response in compliance with the directives of this order” would result in the dismissal of this
civil action. Id. The time allotted Mathis for filing a response in compliance with the directives of
this order expired on August 23, 2011. In addition, the court recently entered an order requiring that
on or before January 21, 2014 Mathis show cause why this case should not be dismissed for his
failure to file a response in opposition to the defendants’ written reports. Order of January 8, 2014 Doc. No. 30. As of the present date, Mathis has filed nothing in response to these orders. Thus, the
court concludes that this case should be dismissed.
The court has reviewed the file to determine whether a less drastic measure than dismissal
is appropriate. After such review, it is clear that dismissal of this case is the proper course of action
at this time. Mathis is an indigent individual. Thus, the imposition of monetary or other punitive
sanctions against him would be ineffectual. Additionally, Mathis’ inaction in the face of the
defendants’ reports and evidence suggests a loss of interest in the continued prosecution of this case.
Moreover, the undisputed evidentiary materials submitted by the defendants, including but not
limited to the medical records documenting relevant treatment provided to Mathis, indicate that no
violation of the Constitution occurred. Finally, Mathis ignored the show cause order entered herein.
It is therefore clear that any additional effort by this court to secure his compliance would be

2

unavailing. Consequently, the court concludes that the plaintiff’s abandonment of his claims and
his failure to comply with the orders of this court warrant dismissal of this case. Moon v. Newsome,
863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (As a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal
for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.); see also Tanner v. Neal, 232 Fed.
Appx. 924 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate’s § 1983
action for failure to file an amendment to complaint in compliance with court’s prior order directing
amendment and warning of consequences for failure to comply).
A separate order will accompany this memorandum opinion.
Done this 18th day of February, 2014.

/s/Terry F. Moorer
TERRY F. MOORER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3