Harris v. Wexford Health Services et al

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 3/26/2024. (MEB2)

FILED
2024 Mar-26 PM 02:27
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
DEXTER HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLES HOOPER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:22-cv-00500-LSC-SGC

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The pro se plaintiff, Dexter Harris, asserts an Eighth Amendment claim via
42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference against Charles Hooper, CRNP, alleging
denial of medical care at Limestone Correctional Facility. More specifically,
Harris’s claim concerns the diagnosis and treatment—or supposed lack thereof—of
problems with his right hand. The magistrate judge entered a report on February 27,
2024, recommending the court grant the defendant’s construed motion for summary
judgment. (Doc. 31). Harris has filed objections to the report and recommendation.
(Doc. 32).
Harris’s objections, which do not take issue with the magistrate judge’s
factual findings,1 reinforce the dispositive conclusion in the report and
1

Indeed, much of Harris’s objections are devoted to summarizing the facts recited in the report.
(Doc. 32 at 2-5). It appears when Harris mailed his objections to the court, he neglected to include
the second page of his objections. (See id. at 1-2). In any event, the Clerk of Court has confirmed
that all of the pages included in Harris’s mailing have been entered into the record.

recommendation: that Harris’s claims amount to his disagreement with the medical
treatment he received at Limestone. (See Doc. 32 at 6-8). Mere differences of
opinion are insufficient to show deliberate indifference. E.g. Keohane v. Fla. Dep't
of Corr. Sec'y, 952 F.3d 1257, 1265-66 (11th Cir. 2020). While the plaintiff casts
the magistrate judge’s determination as an improper credibility finding, her
conclusion is the natural and necessary result of the facts set out in the report and
recommendation—facts which Harris has adopted and incorporated into his
objections. Similarly, Harris’s continued insistence that he be evaluated by an
independent medical provider supports the conclusion that his claim here is based
on his disagreement with the treatment he has received. (Doc. 32 at 6).
For the foregoing reasons, Harris’s objections are OVERRULED. (Doc. 32)
After careful consideration of the entire record in this case, including the magistrate
judge’s report and the objections thereto, the court ADOPTS the report and
ACCEPTS the recommendation. (Doc. 31). Consistent with that recommendation,
the defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be granted and all claims in this
matter will be dismissed with prejudice.
DONE and ORDERED on March 26, 2024.

_____________________________
L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
2

160704