Ryles v. Taylor et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 154

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED as follows: 1.) The Plf's 153 objections are OVERRULED; 2.) The 149 Recommendation is ADOPTED as modified herein; 3.) The answers and special reports filed by Dfts William Alexander, Jarrod Barr , Theresa Dyer, Brinson Harley, William Hood, Mike Loyless, Ian Parker, Meggan Sizemore, Heath Taylor, Pam Weatherly, and Steve Johnson are construed as motions to dismiss (docs. 35 , 68 ), and the motions to dismiss (docs. 35 , 68 ) are GRANTED to the extent these Dfts seek dismissal of the federal claims against them due to the Plf's failure to properly exhaust administrative remedies; 4.) The federal claims against Dfts William Alexander, Jarrod Barr, Theresa Dyer, Brinson Harley, Wi lliam Hood, Mike Loyless, Ian Parker, Meggan Sizemore, Heath Taylor, Pam Weatherly, and Steve Johnson are DISMISSED with prejudice; 5.) The answers and special reports filed by Dfts Symphony Diagnostic Services No. 1 d/b/a/ TridentCare and Dr. Scott Loveless (docs. 39 , 42 , 70 ) are construed as motions for summary judgment, and the motions for summary judgment (docs. 39 , 42 , 70 ) are GRANTED as to the Plf's federal claims against these Dfts; 6.) The federal claims against Dfts Sym phony Diagnostic Services No. 1 d/b/a/ TridentCare and Dr. Scott Loveless are DISMISSED with prejudice; 7.) The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plf's state law claims pursuant to 28 USC 1367(c)(3), and the state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice; 8.) The Plf's claims against Dfts Pamala Shaw, Daryl Ellis, Andrew Mosier, Jessie Stanley, and Jessica Mace are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to FRCP 4(m) and for the Plf's failure to prosecute and comply with Court Orders; 9.) Except for the filing fee assessed to the Plf, no costs are taxed; 10.) This case is DISMISSED; A separate Final Judgment will be entered. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 8/30/2024. (BES)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
SANFORD LEONARD RYLES,
AIS 167820,
Plaintiff,
v.
HEATH TAYLOR, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACT. NO. 3:21-cv-589-ECM
)
[WO]
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Plaintiff Sanford Leonard Ryles (“Ryles” or “Plaintiff”), an inmate in the custody
of the Alabama Department of Corrections (“ADOC”), brought this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that he was provided inadequate medical care in violation of the
Eighth Amendment, along with other alleged constitutional violations. On August 6, 2024,
the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation (doc. 149) that certain federal claims be
dismissed with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; other federal
claims be dismissed with prejudice because no reasonable jury could conclude that Ryles’
Eighth Amendment rights were violated; other federal claims be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with Court Orders; and any state law claims
be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Ryles filed objections
to the Recommendation. (Doc. 153). After carefully reviewing the record in this case, the
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and Ryles’ objections, the Court concludes that

Ryles’ objections are due to be overruled, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is
due to be adopted as modified herein, and this case is due to be dismissed.
When a party objects to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the
district court must review the disputed portions de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also
United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674 (1980). The district court “may accept, reject,
or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or resubmit the matter
to the magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). De novo review requires
that the district court independently consider factual issues based on the record. Jeffrey S.
by Ernest S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of State of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990).
However, objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation must be
sufficiently specific in order to warrant de novo review. See LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d
745, 750 (11th Cir. 1988) (“Whenever any party files a timely and specific objection to a
finding of fact by a magistrate [judge], the district court has an obligation to conduct a de
novo review of the record with respect to that factual issue.”). Otherwise, a Report and
Recommendation is reviewed for clear error.
The Court has carefully reviewed the record in this case, the Recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge, and Ryles’ objections. To the extent Ryles’ makes conclusory
objections or merely restates the allegations in his complaint, these objections are reviewed
for clear error and are due to be overruled.
On July 15, 2024, before entering the Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge
ordered the parties to each file a brief, by July 30, 2024, addressing the standard set forth
2

in the Eleventh Circuit’s recent en banc decision in Wade v. McDade, 106 F.4th 1251 (11th
Cir. July 10, 2024) (en banc), and its applicability to the deliberate indifference claims at
issue in this case. (Doc. 145). The Order specified that “[n]o extensions of this deadline
will be granted.” (Id. at 2) (emphasis in original). Ryles specifically objects to the
Magistrate Judge’s purported failure to consider his brief addressing the Wade standard
(doc. 151). Ryles’ brief was initially received by the Court on August 5, 2024 and appears
to have been mailed on July 25, 2024; however, the Clerk of Court returned the filing to
Ryles because it lacked a certificate of service. (Doc. 150). Ryles re-mailed the filing, and
it was filed with the Court on August 15, which was after the Magistrate Judge entered her
Recommendation. (Doc. 151). Assuming without deciding that Ryles’ brief was timely,
the brief far exceeds the narrow scope of the Court’s July 15 Order. The Court’s July 15
Order called for briefing on Wade—nothing else. Nonetheless, Ryles’ response brief
includes evidence and arguments in opposition to the Defendants’ earlier submissions. For
this reason, the Court need not consider Ryles’ brief to the extent it addresses issues beyond
the applicability of the Wade standard. Even if the Court did consider the entire brief, it
would not change the outcome of the Recommendation. Consequently, this objection is
due to be overruled.
The remainder of Ryles’ objections amount to general or conclusory objections or
restatements of arguments already presented and addressed in the Recommendation. While
Ryles’ objections reflect a disagreement with the Recommendation’s findings and
conclusions, Ryles fails to establish that the Magistrate Judge committed any error.
3

Consequently, his objections are due to be overruled.
Accordingly, upon an independent review of the record, and for good cause, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1.

The Plaintiff’s objections (doc. 153) are OVERRULED;

2.

The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 149) is ADOPTED as

modified herein;
3.

The answers and special reports filed by Defendants William Alexander,

Jarrod Barr, Theresa Dyer, Brinson Harley, William Hood, Mike Loyless, Ian Parker,
Meggan Sizemore, Heath Taylor, Pam Weatherly, and Steve Johnson are construed as
motions to dismiss (docs. 35, 68), and the motions to dismiss (docs. 35, 68) are GRANTED
to the extent these Defendants seek dismissal of the federal claims against them due to the
Plaintiff’s failure to properly exhaust administrative remedies;
4.

The federal claims against Defendants William Alexander, Jarrod Barr,

Theresa Dyer, Brinson Harley, William Hood, Mike Loyless, Ian Parker, Meggan
Sizemore, Heath Taylor, Pam Weatherly, and Steve Johnson are DISMISSED with
prejudice;
5.

The answers and special reports filed by Defendants Symphony Diagnostic

Services No. 1 d/b/a/ TridentCare and Dr. Scott Loveless (docs. 39, 42, 70) are construed
as motions for summary judgment, and the motions for summary judgment (docs. 39, 42,
70) are GRANTED as to the Plaintiff’s federal claims against these Defendants;

4

6.

The federal claims against Defendants Symphony Diagnostic Services No. 1

d/b/a/ TridentCare and Dr. Scott Loveless are DISMISSED with prejudice;
7.

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s

state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and the state law claims are
DISMISSED without prejudice;
8.

The Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Pamala Shaw, Daryl Ellis, Andrew

Mosier, Jessie Stanley, and Jessica Mace are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and for the Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and comply
with Court Orders.
9.

Except for the filing fee assessed to the Plaintiff, no costs are taxed.

10.

This case is DISMISSED.

A separate Final Judgment will be entered.
DONE this 30th day of August, 2024.
/s/ Emily C. Marks
EMILY C. MARKS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5