COSTLOW v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al

Filing 17

ORDER ACCEPTING in part and REJECTING in part 7 Report and Recommendations. The deliberate indifference claim against Lockett may proceed along with the claim against McLaughlin. It is ORDERED that service be made on Corey Lockett and that he file an answer or such other response as may be appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 4/15/2016. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
JAMES A. COSTLOW,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et
al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-268 (MTT)

ORDER
After Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle conducted the preliminary screening of
Plaintiff James A. Costlow’s complaint required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, he recommends
allowing Costlow’s claims against Defendant McLaughlin to proceed and dismissing the
claims against Defendants Lockett and the Georgia Department of Corrections. (Doc.
7). Costlow has objected. (Doc. 13). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has
reviewed Costlow’s objection and has made a de novo determination of the portions of
the Recommendation to which he objects.
The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Costlow’s claim against Lockett
because he had not alleged that Lockett had any particularized knowledge that
McCrimmon posed a specific threat to Costlow. (Doc. 7 at 5). In his complaint, Costlow
alleges that he notified Lockett about threats against him twice. (Doc. 1 at 4, 5). In his
objection, Costlow clarifies that this notification was that McCrimmon was a threat to
him and that there was the possibility of an altercation if McCrimmon was allowed to
serve Costlow’s food. (Doc. 13 at 1). Lockett still allowed McCrimmon to serve

Costlow’s food, and he did not supervise McCrimmon while he did so. (Doc. 13 at 1).
Construing his allegations liberally, Costlow has sufficiently alleged that Lockett knew of
the substantial risk of serious harm and knowingly or recklessly disregarded that risk.
He has stated a deliberate indifference claim against Lockett.
The Court ACCEPTS in part and REJECTS in part the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the deliberate indifference
claim against Lockett may proceed along with the claim against McLaughlin. It is
ORDERED that service be made on Corey Lockett and that he file an answer or such
other response as may be appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and
the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The Defendants are also reminded of the duty to
avoid unnecessary service expenses and of the possible imposition of expenses for
failure to waive service. The Plaintiff is reminded of his duty to keep the clerk of court
and all opposing attorneys advised of his current address, duty to prosecute this action,
and the provisions regarding discovery in the Magistrate Judge’s order.
SO ORDERED, this 15th day of April, 2016.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-