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.