Johnson v. Monroe
Filing
12
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
STATES
DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP
FOR THE
GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
MAURICE LAVELL JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL
CV
v.
ACTION
NO.
417-044
NURSE MONROE,
•
Defendant.
0
R
E
D
R
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
42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.
(Doc. 6.)
In particular,
the Magistrate
Judge concluded that Petitioner had failed to state a claim
for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need because
his
factual
allegations
failed to
rise
to
the requisite
standard. Instead, Petitioner's allegations showed only that
he disagreed with the type of conservative care provided to
him.
(Id.
at
4-6.)
At
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
were
due
by April
28,
2017.
Prior
to that
deadline,
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
Center
("CCDC").
(Doc.
7.)
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
operating procedures
of
for medical
care
detainees
at
the
CCDC.
Upon review of
Petitioner's complaint,
the Report and
Recommendation, and his objections thereto, this Court adopted
the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and dismissed
the
case.
Presently,
Petitioner
has
filed
a
motion
for
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
faces.
Petitioner's
because he had failed to state
facts
claim was dismissed
sufficient to show that
Defendant Nurse Monroe was deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs.
in
the
The facts are within the purview of
Petitioner,
not
prison's
operating
protocols
and
procedures.
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,
is
required to allege
deliberate
facts
indifference
that
to
a
show he was
serious
treated with
medical
Petitioner failed to do so in his complaint,
he
need.2
and he did not
take the opportunity to do so through an amended complaint.
Accordingly,
nothing has changed that would warrant reversal
of this Court's decision to dismiss the complaint.
Upon
the
reconsideration
foregoing,
(doc.
11)
Petitioner's
motion
for
is DENIED.
ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this a)/* day of May,
2017.
J. RJ^Nmi/HAIiL,
CHIEF JUDGE
UNIT^STATES DISTRICT COURT
FHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
2
"A
serious
medical
need
is
'one
that
has
been
diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is
so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the
necessity
for
a
doctor's
attention.'"
Mann v.
Taser
Internat'l, Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1307 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoted
source omitted).
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
negligence."
Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1351 (11th Cir.
2004) .
In
the
instant
case,
Petitioner
was
treated
for
his
serious medical condition, spitting up blood, by placing him
under
observation
of
condition improved,
reasonable
jury
the
medical
staff.
Petitioner's
necessitating no further treatment.
could
find
that
Defendant
acted
No
with
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?