EMBERSON v. CHATMAN et al

Filing 34

ORDER ADOPTING 15 Report and Recommendations. Any Eighth Amendment claims brought by the Plaintiff based on a specific denial of medical or dental care are DISMISSED without prejudice. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 6/21/2016. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
BUELL DAVID EMBERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRUCE CHATMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-331 (MTT)

ORDER
United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle recommends that any Eighth
Amendment claims brought by the Plaintiff based on a specific denial of medical or
dental care be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 15). The Plaintiff has not objected to
the Recommendation. The Court has reviewed the Recommendation and accepts and
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, the Recommendation is ADOPTED and made the order of this Court. Any
Eighth Amendment claims brought by the Plaintiff based on a specific denial of medical
or dental care are DISMISSED without prejudice.1
SO ORDERED, this 21st day of June, 2016.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

Because the Plaintiff’s amended complaint clearly identifies his Eighth Amendment claim as “totality of
confinement conditions,” it does not appear that the Plaintiff is attempting to bring a claim based on a
specific denial. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff alleges, without identifying a defendant, that in “early 2015” he
“was forced to wait more than a month in severe pain” for dental care. (Doc. 12 at ¶ 52). To the extent
the Plaintiff is attempting to bring an Eighth Amendment claim based on this incident, the relevant two
year statute of limitations will not bar the refiling of the claim.