Guilbeault v. Haynes et al

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING the 11 Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The Plaintiff's Objections are w/out merit and are overruled. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 12/5/2012. (ca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
BRUNSWICK DIVISION

WALTER GUILBEAULT,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV212-158

vs.
ANTHONY HAYNES; CHARLES
E. SAMUELS, JR., and C. D.
LIBERO, MD,
Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report dated November 13,
2012, which recommended that Plaintiffs Complaint, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1331 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2671, et seq., be
dismissed. In his Objections, Plaintiff argues that his allegations sufficiently state a
claim for deliberate indifference to his medical needs. After an independent and de

novo review of the record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation.
Plaintiff alleges, in his Complaint, that he has been denied proper care for his
diabetes because he has not been provided orthopedic shoes or allowed to purchase
his own shoes and because he has not seen a podiatrist. Plaintiff also alleges, more
generally, that he has been denied proper care for his diabetes. Plaintiff named

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

Anthony Haynes, Warden at the Federal Satellite Low in Jesup, Georgia ("FSL Jesup");
Charles E. Samuels, Jr., Director of the Bureau of Prisons; and C.D. Libero, M.D., as
Defendants in this action.
The Magistrate Judge determined that, as to his attempt to assert claims under
Bivens, Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted for two
reasons. First, Plaintiff did not allege that any of the named Defendants violated any of
his constitutional rights. Therefore, Plaintiff did not set forth "a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief." FED. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
Second, even if Plaintiff had connected his allegations to the named Defendants, none
of Plaintiffs allegations state a claim for deliberate indifference. Plaintiff alleges that he
has been denied proper care for his diabetes. But Plaintiff has not alleged facts
tending to show that any prison official has been deliberately indifferent to any of his
medical needs. Specifically, Plaintiff has not alleged that any of the named Defendants
knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Plaintiffs health, as required to state a
deliberate indifference claim by Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
Therefore, Plaintiff has not shown that he has been deprived of a constitutional right.
Nothing in Plaintiffs Objection persuades the Court to hold differently.
The Magistrate Judge determined that, as to his attempt to assert claims under
the FTCA, Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted for two
reasons. First, Plaintiff did not name the United States as a Defendant. Second, even
if . Plaintiff had named the United States as a Defendant, Plaintiff did not allege any facts
tending to show that any prison official has been negligent or acted wrongfully with

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

regard to any of his medical needs. Nothing in Plaintiffs Objection persuades the
Court to hold differently.
Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation are
without merit and are overruled. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge is adopted as the Opinion of the Court. Plaintiffs Complain

SO ORDERED, this

day of

DISMISSED.
, 2012.

ISA GOINEYW000 I CHIEEJIJDGE
UNITED TA BIGTR1CTOURT
SOUl RN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

3