May v. Patterson, et al
ORDER ADOPTING 12 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 9 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Deric LaVelle May; Objections to R&R due by 4/25/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins on 4/5/2012. copy mailed to plaintiff (srr). Signed by Senior Judge Charles R. Butler, Jr on 5/21/2012. (adk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
DERIC LaVELLE MAY,
TONY PATTERSON, et al.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-00675-CB-B
Plaintiff Deric LaVelle May, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, has filed an
objection to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 12.) After de novo
review of all matters to which objection is raised, the Court finds that the objections are without
Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction directing Defendants to provide him
with certain medical treatment for a malfunctioning ventriculoperitoneal shunt (“VP shunt”).
The Magistrate Judge has recommended that the motion be denied because Plaintiff has failed to
identify a specific, imminent injury he will suffer if preliminary injunctive relief does not issue.
In his objection, Plaintiff points out two potential injuries. First, he notes that a malfunctioning
VP shunt can become life threatening if not treated. He does not, however, aver any imminent
threat of injury. Second, Plaintiff avers that any blow to the head could result in his death.
Because he suffers from a seizure disorder and is housed in an unpadded segregated cell,
Plaintiff argues that he is at imminent risk of serious injury or death. However, this risk is
unrelated to the relief sought and would not be alleviated if relief were granted. Based on the
evidence submitted by Plaintiff, the risk of injury from a blow to the head is always present due
to the existence of the VP shunt.1 It is not caused by the malfunctioning of the shunt. The basis
of this lawsuit and the motion for preliminary injunction is Defendants’ alleged failure to provide
adequate medical treatment for the malfunctioning VP shunt. Consequently, neither of the
potential injuries identified by Plaintiff in his objection to the Report and Recommendation is
sufficient to support a preliminary injunction.
Accordingly, the objections are OVERRULED, and the Report and Recommendation is
ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.
DONE and ORDERED this the 21st day of May, 2012.
s/Charles R. Butler, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Plaintiff has attached what appear to be excerpts of transcripts from his sentencing
hearing. The Plaintiff’s mother, Joyce Ware, testified that “the doctor [told]me . . . that . . . just
one blow to the head. . . could be fatal.” (Pl.’s Ex. A2, Doc. 25.) Mrs. Ware also testified that he
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?