HEATH v. MCLAUGHLIN et al

Filing 39

ORDER adopting 36 Report and Recommendations; granting 27 Motion to Dismiss Complaint. Party RIDLEY (Macon State Prison) terminated. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE TILMAN E. SELF, III on 9/23/2019. (tlw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
DAVID A. HEATH,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
5:18-cv-00168-TES-MSH

GREGORY MCLAUGHLIN, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff David A. Heath, an inmate currently confined in Hancock State Prison,
filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several Macon State Prison officials
alleging violations of his First and Eighth Amendment rights. See generally [Doc. 1]. In his
complaint, Plaintiff claims that Defendant Lt. Ridley, who is one of two remaining
Defendants in this case, threatened him with violence for requesting medical assistance
after he was injured in a prison van accident. [Doc. 1, pp. 10, 12]. Plaintiff further claims
that Lt. Ridley’s actions constituted retaliation in violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment
right “to seek redress from the prison [through] medical treatment.” [Id. at p. 12].
Lt. Ridley moved to dismiss this claim on the grounds that he is entitled to
Eleventh Amendment immunity on the claims alleged against him in his official capacity;
Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); and Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief are

moot. See generally [Doc. 27-1]. The United States Magistrate Judge reviewed Ridley’s
motion and Plaintiff’s response and now recommends that the Court grant Ridley’s
motion. See generally [Doc. 36].
Because the parties filed no objections to the recommendation, the Court need only
review the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also
Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (“[I]n the absence of a timely
filed objection, a district court . . . must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the
face of the record in order to accept the [magistrate judge’s] recommendation.”). Having
performed the requisite review of the findings, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. 36] and MAKES IT THE ORDER OF THE
COURT. Accordingly, Defendant Lt. Ridley’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 27] is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of September, 2019.
s/Tilman E. Self, III
TILMAN E. SELF, III, Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2