Hayes v. Bryson et al

Filing 29

ORDER overruling Plaintiff's 13 Objections; adopting the 9 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, as supplemented herein, as the opinion of the Court; dismissing Plaintiff's claims for monetary damages against all Defendants in their official capacities, and all of Plaintiff claims against Defendants Georgia Department of Corrections, Georgia State Prison, Bryson, Lewis, Jacobs, Fountain, Nicolov, and Fara; and ruling that Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims for in junctive relief against Defendants Toole, Williams, Broome, and Sabine in their official capacities, as well as his claims for monetary damages against these Defendants in their individual capacities, shall proceed. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 1/9/2017. (jah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION

MARION STANLEY HAYES,

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:16-cv-20

v.

COMMISSIONER HOMER BRYSON, et al,
Defendants.

ORDER

Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs Objections, (doc. 13), to the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation dated June 8, 2016, (doc. 9). After an independent and de novo
review of the entire record, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objections, CONCURS with

the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation, as supplemented herein, as the opinion of the Court.
BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to contest certain
conditions of his confinement while housed at Georgia State Prison in Reidsville, Georgia.

(Doc. 1.) In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants denied him access to necessary
medical care. Plaintiff stated he directly notified Defendants Toole, Williams, Broome, and
Sabine that he suffers from rheumatoid arthritis and hip deterioration and had been prescribed

hip replacement surgery prior to his incarceration. (Id at p. 9.) Plaintiff contended that, despite
their knowledge of his condition and need for treatment, Defendants refused to provide Plaintiff

with hip replacement surgery due to the cost of the surgery. (Id at p. 10.) Plaintiff stated that

this indifference to his medical needs has caused his condition to worsen and that he now has

difficulty walking. (Id.)

In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court
dismiss all of Plaintiffs claims against the Georgia Department of Corrections and Georgia State

Prison, all of Plaintiffs claims for monetary damages against all Defendants in their official
capacities, and all of Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Bryson, Lewis, Jacobs, Fountain,

Nicolov, and Fara.

However, the Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiffs Eighth

Amendment deliberate indifference claims against Defendants Broome, Toole, Williams, and

Sabine shall proceed. (Id at p. 9.) Plaintiff filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation,
as well as a Motion to Amend his Complaint, on July 25, 2016, (docs. 13, 14). The Magistrate
Judge denied Plaintiffs Motion to Amend on September 20, 2016. (Doc. 23.)
DISCUSSION

In his Objections, Plaintiff first contends that the Court should reject the Magistrate

Judge's Report and Recommendation because the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of
claims that Plaintiff did not allege in his Complaint. (Doc. 13, pp. 1-2.) Specifically, Plaintiff

avers that he did not allege claims for damages against Defendants in their official capacities.
Plaintiff avers that he instead sued Defendants in their official capacities for declaratory,

injunctive, prospective, and equitable relief. (Id at p. 1.) Similarly, Plaintiff argues that the
Magistrate Judge improperly recommended dismissal of claims against Georgia State Prison
because "Plaintiff has not sued [Georgia State Prison] at all and it is not a named defendant."
(14)

As the Magistrate Judge noted in the Report and Recommendation, the pleadings of

unrepresented parties are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys and,

therefore, must be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner. 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Boxer X v.
Harris. 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006) ("Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent
standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys.") (emphasis omitted) (quoting Hughes v. Lott 350
F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003)). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this case, the
Magistrate Judge thoroughly reviewed and liberally construed the Complaint to assess all claims
that Plaintiff plausibly alleged. It is by no means clear from Plaintiffs Complaint that he did not
intend to assert claims for monetary relief against the individual Defendants in their official
capacities or that Plaintiff did not intend to sue Georgia State Prison. Thus, the Magistrate Judge
was correct to analyze those potential claims, and the Court OVERRULES this Objection.

Next, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the Court dismiss

his claims against the Georgia Department of Corrections. Plaintiff argues that, because he has

sued the Georgia Department of Corrections for injunctive relief only, the Eleventh Amendment
does not bar his claims against that entity. (Doc. 13, p. 2.) However, as the Magistrate Judge

explained in the Report and Recommendation, "[a] state and its agencies (such as the Georgia

Department of Corrections and Georgia State Prison) are not 'persons' who may be sued under
§ 1983." Darrough v. Allen. No. l:13-CV-57 WLS, 2013 WL 5902792, at *3 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 8,

2013). Furthermore, because the Georgia Department of Corrections is an agency of the State of

Georgia, "[t]he Eleventh Amendment bar applies irrespective of whether a plaintiff seeks
monetary or injunctive relief." Duva v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Svs. of Georgia, No. 1514752, 2016 WL 3454155, at *1 (11th Cir. June 24, 2016) (citing Cory v. White, 457 U.S. 85

(1982)). Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objection.

Plaintiff also objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the Court dismiss

Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Bryson, Jacobs, Lewis, and Fountain. First, Plaintiff

attempts to convert his access to grievance procedure claims against these Defendants to access
to courts claims by referring to his contemporaneously filed motion to amend.

However,

Plaintiff may not assert new claims via his Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation. The Court finds it inappropriate to consider arguments presented for the first
time in Plaintiffs objections, and, therefore, declines to do so. Williams v. McNeil 557 F.3d
1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (approving district court's refusal to consider new argument set
forth in objections where party had opportunity to present such argument to magistrate judge and

failed to do so); see also United States v. Howell 231 F.3d 615, 621 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that

district courts are not required to consider supplemental factual allegations presented for the first

time in objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation).

Moreover, the

Magistrate Judge correctly denied Plaintiffs Motion to Amend his Complaint, which included
access to courts claims, on September 20, 2016. (Doc. 23.) Therefore, the Court OVERRULES
this Objection.

Plaintiff further objects that Defendants Bryson, Jacobs, Lewis, and Fountain have a

"custom of deliberate indifference through which Defendants Toole, Williams, Broome, and
Sabine were, and still are, able to violate Plaintiffs rights." (Id at pp. 4-5.) He also contends

that Defendants Bryson, Jacobs, Lewis, and Fountain should remain Defendants in this case, as

they are responsible for "approving] the funding [and] scheduling] any surgeries" Plaintiff may

require in the future.

(Id.)

These Objections are merely conclusory reiterations of his

supervisory liability and deliberate indifference claims against Defendants Bryson, Jacobs,
Lewis, and Fountain.

The Magistrate Judge properly determined that these conclusory

allegations fail to state a claim against these Defendants.
OVERRULES those Objections.

Accordingly, the Court also

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objections,
(doc. 13), and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, as supplemented

herein, as the opinion of the Court. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs claims for monetary
damages against all Defendants in their official capacities, all of Plaintiffs claims against
Defendants Georgia Department of Corrections and Georgia State Prison, and all of Plaintiff s
claims against Defendants Bryson, Lewis, Jacobs, Fountain, Nicolov, and Fara.

However, Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claims for injunctive relief against Defendants

Toole, Williams, Broome, and Sabine in their official capacities, as well as his claims for

monetary damages against these Defendants in their individual capacities, shall proceed.

SO ORDERED, this

i^ day ofJanuary, 2017.

HONORABLE J. RANDAL HALL

UNITEd/tATES DISTRICT JUDGE
iRN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA