Johnson v. Monroe
ORDER denying 11 Motion for Reconsideration re 9 Order on Report and Recommendations. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 05/31/2017. (thb)
IN THE UNITED
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP
MAURICE LAVELL JOHNSON,
On April 13, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge
entered a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal of
Petitioner Maurice Lavell Johnson's suit brought pursuant to
Judge concluded that Petitioner had failed to state a claim
for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need because
standard. Instead, Petitioner's allegations showed only that
he disagreed with the type of conservative care provided to
the conclusion of
the Report and
Recommendation, Petitioner was informed that he could file an
Amended Complaint within his objection period if he felt he
could cure the pleading problem.
(Id. at 7 n.6.)
Petitioner's objections to the Report and Recommendation
Petitioner filed a motion for extension of time, complaining
that until he is designated as "pro-se counsel," he could not
gain access to legal materials at the Chatham County Detention
Before the Court could rule on
the matter, however, Petitioner filed objections to the Report
and Recommendation on May 3, 2017.1
The objections reiterated
his alleged denial of meaningful access to legal materials,
and Petitioner also complained that he could not state a claim
without obtaining medical research to
include the standard
Upon review of
the Report and
Recommendation, and his objections thereto, this Court adopted
the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and dismissed
reconsideration in which he complains that he did not have an
adequate opportunity to provide proper objections and requests
access to the prison's standard operating procedures.
It appears that Petitioner has missed the point of the
legal problem he
because he had failed to state
claim was dismissed
sufficient to show that
Defendant Nurse Monroe was deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs.
The facts are within the purview of
Petitioner is not required to show or even allege
1 Petitioner deposited his objections in the mail on
April 25, 2017, three days prior to the deadline; accordingly,
the objections were timely filed.
that certain medical protocols were not followed; rather,
required to allege
show he was
Petitioner failed to do so in his complaint,
and he did not
take the opportunity to do so through an amended complaint.
nothing has changed that would warrant reversal
of this Court's decision to dismiss the complaint.
ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this a)/* day of May,
UNIT^STATES DISTRICT COURT
FHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is
so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the
Internat'l, Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1307 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoted
Deliberate indifference to a serious medical
need offends u'evolving standards of decency.'" Id. (quoting
Estille v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
A plaintiff must
show: "(1) subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm; (2)
disregard of that risk; and (3) conduct that is more than mere
Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1351 (11th Cir.
serious medical condition, spitting up blood, by placing him
necessitating no further treatment.
deliberate indifference under these factual circumstances.
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?