Roebling v. City of Tuscaloosa, AL et al

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 11/23/2015. (KAM, )

FILED
2015 Nov-23 AM 09:36
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION
MARY GABRIELLE ROEBLING,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA, et
al.,
Defendants.

}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

Case No.: 7:14-cv-00151-RDP

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On October 30, 2015, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 35)
was entered and the parties were allowed therein fourteen (14) days in which to file objections to
the recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. No objections were filed.
After careful consideration of the record in this case and the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation, the court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge. The court
notes particularly, in addition to (but consistent with) the Report of the Magistrate Judge, that
Plaintiff did not allege that she ever requested medical treatment. Plaintiff’s silence on an
express request for medical treatment, while not fatal to her claims on its own, is significant
because the record shows that she retained the ability to talk about other matters. Indeed, she
spoke to various City and County of Tuscaloosa officers about other topics, including various
statements about her foot. (Doc. # 1). And, as the Eleventh Circuit has noted,
[a] person is not required to request medical care to prevail on a claim of
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. But in this situation, where
Plaintiff engaged in conversation on different topics, Plaintiff’s failure to request
medical care supports [the] determination that objectively reasonable law
enforcement officers—held to the standard of a layperson, rather than a trained

medical professional—would not be on notice that Plaintiff needed immediate
medical care.
Youmans v. Gagnon, 636 F.3d 557, 566 n. 12 (11th Cir. 2010).
For these reasons, and for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the
court ACCEPTS the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that Defendants’ Motions to
Dismiss (Docs. # 9, 17) are due to be granted and the remaining claims in this case are due to be
dismissed as to all Defendants.
A separate order in accordance with the Memorandum Opinion will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED this November 23, 2015.

_________________________________
R. DAVID PROCTOR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2