Gangle v. Givens et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 7/27/2018. (KEK)

FILED
2018 Jul-27 PM 03:36
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JASPER DIVISION
NORMAN CLARK GANGLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN GIVENS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 6:16-cv-1372-MHH-HNJ

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On August 22, 2016, pro se plaintiff Norman Clark Gangle filed this action
against defendants Gwendolyn Givens, Brian Colburn, Amy Woods, and Jerry
Lovelace. (Doc. 1). Mr. Gangle also moved to proceed in forma pauperis. The
magistrate judge to whom this case originally was assigned granted that motion on
September 22, 2016. (Doc. 3).
On May 8, 2017, the magistrate judge ordered Mr. Gangle to amend his
complaint because of his deficient allegations about hepatitis and cataracts. (Doc.
8). Mr. Gangle did not comply with this order. Accordingly, on June 12, 2017, the
Court dismissed Mr. Gangle’s claims concerning hepatitis and cataracts without
prejudice for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 9).
On July 6, 2017, the second magistrate judge to whom this case was
assigned ordered Ms. Givens, Mr. Colburn, Ms. Woods, Mr. Lovelace, and an

unidentified nurse designated as “Body Chart Nurse” to file a special report about
Mr. Gangle’s remaining claims. (Doc. 10, p. 3).
Mr. Lovelace and Ms. Woods filed their special report on July 21, 2017.
(Doc. 16). Mr. Colburn and Ms. Givens filed their special report on August 25,
2017. (Doc. 19). The magistrate judge treated those special reports as motions for
summary judgment and ordered Mr. Gangle to respond to them. (Docs. 21, 22).
Mr. Gangle filed his response on October 19, 2017. (Doc. 23).
On May 25, 2018, the magistrate judge recommended that the Court dismiss
without prejudice Mr. Gangle’s Eighth Amendment medical claims against the
“Body Chart Nurse” described in Mr. Gangle’s complaint and identified later in the
record as Lacy Wooten. (Doc. 25, p. 24; Doc. 16-1, p. 14; Doc. 19-2 (Mr.
Colburn’s Affidavit), p. 1; Doc. 19-4, p. 1)).

The magistrate judge also

recommended that the Court dismiss all remaining claims with prejudice. (Doc.
25, p. 31).
The magistrate judge advised the parties of their right to file specific written
objections within 14 days. (Doc. 25, p. 32). To date, Mr. Gangle has not objected
to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Mr. Gangle also has not
requested additional time from the Court in which to object.
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A
2

district court reviews legal conclusions in a report de novo and reviews for plain
error factual findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d
776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749
(11th Cir. 1988); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).1
Based on its review of the record in this case, the Court finds no
misstatements of law in the report and no plain error in the magistrate judge’s
factual findings. Therefore, the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s report.
The Court will issue a separate final order dismissing the claims against the
“Body Chart Nurse” without prejudice and entering judgment as a matter of law in
favor of defendants Gwendolyn Givens, Brian Colburn, Amy Woods, and Jerry
Lovelace.
DONE this 27th day of July, 2018.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

When a party objects to a report in which a magistrate judge recommends dismissal of the
action, a district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C).
3