SKINNER v. DEREBAIL et al

Filing 14

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 6 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiff's Objection 9 is overruled. Defendant's Haggerty, Lewis and Sproul are dismissed from the case. Ordered by Judge W. Louis Sands on 5/31/2013. (bcl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ALBANY DIVISION
MANASSEH ROYDREGO SKINNER,

:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
DR. DEREBAIL, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
____________________________________:

CASE NO.: 1:13-CV-44 (WLS)

ORDER
Before the Court is a Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q.
Langstaff (Doc. 6).

The Recommendation, filed April 17, 2013, recommends that Plaintiff’s

Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Derebail go forward, and that all other Defendants and
claims be dismissed. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff timely filed an Objection (Doc. 9).
Judge Langstaff recommends that Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim against
Defendants Lewis and Sproul be dismissed as no facts were alleged that would support
imposition of supervisory liability under § 1983. (Doc. 6 at 4.) Plaintiff’s Objection alleges no
additional facts that would support a claim against Defendants Lewis and Sproul. Instead, he
simply repeats the conclusory statements made in his original complaint regarding Defendants’
failure to respond to Plaintiff’s grievance forms and alleged knowledge of the conditions of
confinement. As Judge Langstaff noted, these conclusory statements fail to meet the “extremely
rigorous standard” for supervisory liability under § 1983, as denial of a grievance is insufficient
to establish personal participation in the alleged constitutional violation. Cottone v. Jenne, 326
F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir. 2003). Judge Langstaff also recommends that the claim against
Defendant Haggerty be dismissed for failure to allege facts sufficient to support a claim of

1

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Plaintiff’s Objection again offers no new
factual allegations. Instead, he relies solely on the alleged “knowledge” of Defendant Haggerty
as to Plaintiff’s claims, ignoring the fact that Judge Langstaff recommends dismissal of the claim
primarily on the ground that it was not viable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, the Court
finds that Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. 9) fails to rebut the legally sound findings of Judge
Langstaff, and Plaintiff’s objections regarding Defendants Haggerty, Lewis, and Sproul are
OVERRULED.

To the extent that Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. 9) fails to address

recommendations made in Judge Langstaff’s Recommendation (Doc. 6), the Court finds that any
objections not made thereto are WAIVED.
For the foregoing reasons, the objections set forth in Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. 9) are
OVERRULED,

and

United

States

Magistrate

Judge

Langstaff’s

April

17,

2013

Recommendation (Doc. 6), 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, Defendants Haggerty, Lewis, and Sproul are

DISMISSED from the case. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Derebail shall go
forward.
SO ORDERED, this 31st day of May, 2013.

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

2