Cannon v. Corizon Medical Services et al

Filing 23

ORDER The court ADOPTS the magistrate judge's report and ACCEPTS her recommendation. The court ORDERS that the plaintiff's claims against Defendants ADOC, Dunn, Johnson, and Duncan are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § ; 1915A(b)(1). The court further ORDERS that the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment medical claims against Defendants Corizon, Hood, Ambroski, Clay, Alexzander, Bryant, Coleburn, Thurman, McDougal, and Bunn are REFERRED to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 10/30/17. (SAC ) *Order placed in first class mail to pro se Plaintiff.

FILED
2017 Oct-30 PM 12:09
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JASPER DIVISION
ROY M. CANNON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
) Case No. 6:15-cv-02346-KOB-SGC
)
CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
ORDER
The magistrate judge entered a report on May 26, 2017, recommending that the
plaintiff’s claims against the Alabama Department of Corrections (“ADOC”),
Commissioner Jefferson S. Dunn, and Correctional Officers Johnson and Duncan be
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failing to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. 20). The magistrate judge further
recommended that the plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical claims against Corizon,
Dr. Hugh Hood, Health Services Adminstrator Karen Ambroski, Nurse Karen
Alexzander, Nurse Clay, Nurse Bryant, Nurse Coleburn, Nurse Thurman, Nurse
McDougal, and Nurse Bunn be referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Id. at 14-15). The magistrate judge advised the plaintiff of his right to file
specific written objections within fourteen days. (Id. at 15). On June 13, 2017, the

plaintiff responded that he had read the report and recommendation and understood
the magistrate judge’s recommendation that his Eighth Amendment medical claims
against Corizon, Hood, Ambroski, Alexzander, Clay, Bryant, Coleburn, Thurman,
McDougal, and Bunn should proceed. (Doc. 22). The plaintiff did not object to the
magistrate judge’s recommendation that his claims against ADOC, Dunn, Johnson,
and Duncan be dismissed. (Id.).
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court
file, including the report and recommendation, the court ADOPTS the magistrate
judge’s report and ACCEPTS her recommendation. The court ORDERS that the
plaintiff’s claims against Defendants ADOC, Dunn, Johnson, and Duncan are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The
court further ORDERS that the plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical claims against
Defendants Corizon, Hood, Ambroski, Clay, Alexzander, Bryant, Coleburn, Thurman,
McDougal, and Bunn are REFERRED to the magistrate judge for further
proceedings.
DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of October, 2017.

____________________________________
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2