Villar v. Patterson
Order re: 18 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision AFFIRMING 15 Order as set out. Signed by Judge Callie V. S. Granade on 4/25/2011. (copy mailed to Plf on 4/25/11) (tot)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WILLIAM HERBERT VILLAR,
TONY PATTERSON, et al,
CIVIL NO. 11-00106-CG-M
This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s appeal (Doc. 18) from the Order of
the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 15) denying plaintiff’s motion for emergency medical
treatment (Doc. 12), and from the Magistrate Judge’s “failure” to address the
plaintiff’s request, in that same motion, that criminal charges be brought.
This court has reviewed the entire record to date in this case, and concludes
that the magistrate judge’s order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Plaintiff, by his own pleadings, demonstrates that he has received medical care from
both nurses and physicians since the date of onset of his first symptoms, and
although he disagrees with the effectiveness or quality of the care afforded him, has
not demonstrated that his situation is so dire as to require court intervention. This
entire lawsuit is about the quantity and quality of care plaintiff has received, and
until the defendants have had the opportunity to respond with their report, the court
will not address the merits of the complaint.
As for plaintiff’s request that the court institute criminal proceedings, plaintiff
is addressing that request to the wrong branch of government. Only the State of
Alabama or the United States Department of Justice has the authority to instigate a
criminal investigation or bring criminal charges. This court has not authority to do
Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s decision (Doc. 15) regarding plaintiff’s
motion (Doc. 12), is AFFIRMED.
DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of April, 2011.
/s/ Callie V. S. Granade
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?