Walker v. Danforth et al
ORDER reconsidering Plaintiff's 51 Objections and ordering judgment in favor of defendants to stand. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 8/16/2012. (nbp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Civil Action No. 7:11-cv-71 (HL)
AL JONES et al.,
Plaintiff Patrick Walker, who is proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs and violated his rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on
February 27, 2012. (Doc. 37.) Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff reviewed
the case and the motion for summary judgment and issued a report and
recommendation on June 28, 2012. (Doc. 47.) Plaintiff did not file an objection
within the 14-day window for objections, and the Court, after a de novo review of
the case, adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granted
summary judgment for the Defendants on July 18, 2012.
On July 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed an objection to the report and
recommendation of the Magistrate. The date that the objection was received was
outside of the 14-day window for objections, but the objection was dated July 13,
2012, which was within the 14-day period. It is conceivable that the objection was
completed within the statutory period for objections and simply not received by
the Court until after the time period for objections had expired. Therefore, in an
excess of caution, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s objections.
Plaintiff claims that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical needs, stating that he suffers from “avascular necrosis” in his left hip that
causes him extreme pain when he walks. (Doc. 2, p. 5.) Plaintiff maintains that
when he was transferred from Augusta State Medical Prison to Valdosta State
Prison in August of 2010, he was taking eight Percocet pain pills four times a day
for his condition. However, he goes on to claim that when he was at Valdosta
State Prison, Defendants discontinued his pain medication, causing him extreme
pain and discomfort.
In his Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff
recommended that summary judgment be granted in favor of Defendants based
on his findings that Defendants were not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s
serious medical needs, nor did they violate Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA.
Judge Langstaff noted that there was evidence that Plaintiff did not comply with
the proper procedures for receiving his medication. For example, Defendant
Teresa Nall saw Plaintiff “separate his [pain medication] from the rest of his
medications and palm it in his hand.” (Doc. 47, p. 6.) After this incident, Plaintiff’s
medication was ordered to be “crushed and floated,” meaning that be ground into
a powder and mixed into a liquid. Id. Rather than take his medication in this form,
Plaintiff “threw the medication on the ground, became verbally abusive, and left
the pill call line.” Id. Plaintiff’s pain medication was eventually discontinued
because he was not taking it as prescribed. (Doc. 47, p. 7.)
In his objection, Plaintiff reiterates his claims that his rights were violated
and he requests that the Defendants take a “lie detector test,” which Plaintiff
claims will show that Defendants are lying in their assertions about the treatment
provided to Plaintiff. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Defendants are lying about
seeing him palm his pain medications. Plaintiff asks for relief based on the
amount of his suffering based on Defendants’ refusal to provide him pain
The arguments raised by Plaintiff in his objection are not new, nor do they
persuade this Court that it is appropriate to vacate the judgment that has already
been entered in this case. The judgment rendered in favor of Defendants stands,
despite Plaintiff’s objections.
SO ORDERED, this 16th day of August, 2012.
s/ Hugh Lawson
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?