Adams v. County Commissioner for Calhoun County et al

Filing 68

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 29 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiff's Objections ( 30 & 34 ) are overruled. Plaintiff's Supplement Complaint is dismissed. The Medical Board for Private Contractor, The Secretary of State Board of Nursing, Physician Burnside, and Nurse amy Gore are dismissed from the case. Ordered by Judge W. Louis Sands on 5/25/2012. (bcl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ALBANY DIVISION
ALLEN ALPHONSO ADAMS,

:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
COUNTY COMMISSIONER FOR
:
CALHOUN COUNTY, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
____________________________________:

CASE NO.: 1:11-CV-155 (WLS)

ORDER
Before the Court is an Order and Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge
Thomas Q. Langstaff (Doc. 29). The Order and Recommendation, filed March 13, 2012, denies
Plaintiff’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel (Docs. 20, 25), denies Plaintiff’s Motions for
Amended Joined Party(s) (Docs. 21, 26), denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Permission to Enter
Discovery (Doc. 19) and Motion to Compel (Doc. 28), denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate (Doc.
17), grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 14) and Supplement Injunction for
Relief (Doc. 15); and recommends that: (1) Plaintiff’s Supplement Complaint (Doc. 13) be
dismissed, including any allegations contained in the Motion to Amend (Doc. 14) and Motion for
Injunction (Doc. 15); and (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 27) be denied.
Plaintiff timely filed a Motion for Objection (Doc. 30) and “Notice for Appeal Document(s) 11
and 29 Orders” (Doc. 34), which the Court will interpret as Plaintiff’s Objections.
For the following reasons, the objections set forth in Plaintiff’s Objections (Docs. 30, 34)
are OVERRULED, and United States Magistrate Judge Langstaff’s March 13, 2012 Order and
Recommendation (Doc. 29), is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and made the Order of this Court for

1

reason of the findings made and reasons stated therein together with the reasons stated and
conclusions reached herein. Accordingly Plaintiff’s Supplement Complaint (Doc. 13) is hereby
DISMISSED, including any allegations contained in the Motion to Amend (Doc. 14) and
Motion for Injunction (Doc. 15), and Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 27) is hereby
DENIED. The Medical Board for Private Contractor, the Secretary of State Board of Nursing,
Physician Burnside, and Nurse May Gore are DISMISSED from the case.

I.

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO MARCH 13, 2012 ORDER
As best the Court can tell, Plaintiff objects to the rulings made in Judge Langstaff’s

March 13, 2012 Order (Doc. 29) regarding Plaintiff’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel
(Docs. 20, 25), Plaintiff’s Motions for Amended Joined Party(s) (Docs. 21, 26), Plaintiff’s
Motion for Permission to Enter Discovery (Doc. 19), Motion to Compel (Doc. 28), and
Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate (Doc. 17). (Docs. 30, 34).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) states that a “party may serve and file objections
to” a Magistrate Judge’s non-dispositive order, and “[t]he district judge in the case must consider
timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly-erroneous or is
contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (reciting
same “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard). Clear error is a highly deferential
standard of review. As the Supreme Court has explained, a finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when
although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Holton v. City of Thomasville
Sch. Dist., 425 F.3d 1325, 1350 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted). The standard for overturning a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive order is “a very

2

difficult one to meet.” Thornton v. Mercantile Stores Co., Inc., 180 F.R.D. 437, 439
(M.D.Ala.1998) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court has carefully reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s Objections, which were
timely filed within fourteen days as required by Rule 72(a), and finds that they do not show that
Judge Langstaff’s Order (Doc. 29) is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
Objections to Judge Langstaff’s March 13, 2012 Order (Docs. 30, 34) are OVERRULED.

II.

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO MARCH 13, 2012 RECOMMENDATION
Judge Langstaff’s March 13, 2012 Recommendation recommends that Plaintiff’s

Supplement Complaint (Doc. 13) be dismissed, including any allegations contained in the
Motion to Amend (Doc. 14), and that the Defendants named in the Supplement Complaint, the
Medical Board for Private Contractor, the Secretary of State Board of Nursing, Physician
Burnside, and Nurse May Gore, be dismissed from the case.

As best the Court can tell,

Plaintiff’s objections regarding the Defendants named in the Supplement Complaint assert that
the events alleged in the Supplement Complaint relate to the events alleged in Plaintiff’s original
Complaint. Plaintiff’s objections ignore Judge Langstaff’s findings that the new claims occurred
almost a year after the claims alleged in Plaintiff’s original Complaint and that the new claims
occurred at a different prison facility, involve different Defendants, and allege different physical
injuries. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 30, 34) fail to rebut the
legally sound findings of Judge Langstaff, and Plaintiff’s objections regarding the dismissal of
Defendants Nurse May Gore, the Medical Board for Private Contractor, the Secretary of State
Board of Nursing, and Physician Burnside are OVERRULED.

3

Judge Langstaff’s March 13, 2012 Recommendation also recommends that Plaintiff’s
Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 27) be denied. Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 30, 34) fail to
challenge Judge Langstaff’s finding that Plaintiff provided no evidence that he was likely to
prevail on the merits of his claims that he was not receiving medical care and that he is not
receiving his legal mail. Instead of pointing to evidence presented in his pleadings, Plaintiff
asserts that the absence of a response or objection from Defendants to Plaintiff’s Motion should
result in a ruling in Plaintiff’s favor. (Doc. 34 at 2). However, as Judge Langstaff noted, a
preliminary injunction will not be granted unless the movant clearly carries the burden of
persuasion as to the four prerequisites. (Doc. 29 at 7). Plaintiff’s objections do not meet that
burden. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 30, 34) fail to rebut the
legally sound findings of Judge Langstaff, and are OVERRULED.
To the extent that Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 30, 34) fail to address recommendations
made in Judge Langstaff’s Recommendation (Doc. 29), the Court finds that any objections not
made thereto are WAIVED.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the objections set forth in Plaintiff’s Objections (Docs. 30, 34) are
OVERRULED, and United States Magistrate Judge Langstaff’s March 13, 2012 Order and
Recommendation (Doc. 29), is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and made the Order of this Court for
reason of the findings made and reasons stated therein together with the reasons stated and
conclusions reached herein. Accordingly Plaintiff’s Supplement Complaint (Doc. 13) is hereby
DISMISSED, including any allegations contained in the Motion to Amend (Doc. 14) and
Motion for Injunction (Doc. 15), and Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 27) is hereby

4

DENIED. The Medical Board for Private Contractor, the Secretary of State Board of Nursing,
Physician Burnside, and Nurse May Gore are DISMISSED from the case.
SO ORDERED, this 25th day of May, 2012.

/s/ W. Louis Sands
THE HONORABLE W. LOUIS SANDS,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5