Riggs v. Thompson et al

Filing 39

ORDER: 1. The Magistrate's R&R (R. 37 ) is ADOPTED as and for the Opinion of the Court; 2. The Dfts' Mtns for S/J and Mtn to Dismiss (R. 31 , 32 , & 36 ) are GRANTED; 3. Plf's action is DISMISSED in its entirety with prejudice; and 4. All other matters being resolved, JUDGMENT in favor of Dfts will be entered contemporaneously herewith, and this matter shall be STRICKEN from the Court's active docket. Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 1/4/2016.(AKR)cc: COR, paper copy to Plf/Riggs via US Mail

EMtern Dist"",..,t of'i{.'ent' '
,·"v.
. ,;loRy
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
FRANKFORT
ANTHONY RIGGS,
Plaintiff,
V.

LADONNA THOMPSON, et al.,

F'lED
JAN 052016
AT mANKF0R'1
ROi:iERT R. CAR.R
CLERK U,S. DISTRIC1" COURT

)

)

)
)

)

)

)
)

)

Civil No. l4-62-GFVT

ORDER

Defendants.

*** *** *** ***
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins's Report and
Recommendation ("R & R"). [R. 37.] The Magistrate's report concerns Plaintiff Anthony
Riggs's pro se petition seeking a declaration of his right to receive medical treatment while
incarcerated. [R. 1-2]. Riggs maintains that the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
need for spinal surgery, in violation of his rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. [Jd. at 17-28.] In response to Riggs's
complaint, Defendants Cornett, Correct Care, Jones, and Mullins filed a Joint Motion for
Summary Judgment, Defendant Ruth Perry submitted her own Motion for Summary Judgment,
and Defendants Thompson and Howard filed a Motion to Dismiss. [Rs. 31,32, 36].
On November 5, 2015, Judge Atkins issued the instant Report. [R.37.] To begin, the
Magistrate found that Riggs had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his
claims against Cornett, Jones, Mullins, and Perry. Specifically, the R & R notes that Riggs's
complaint at the administrative stage failed to satisfy the Kentucky Department of Corrections'

grievance protocol, which states that grievants must "include all aspects of the issue and identify
all individuals" in their written grievances. [ld. at 7.] Because Riggs did not name Cornett,
Jones, Mullins, or Perry at the grievance stage, the Magistrate concluded that Riggs "did not
exhaust his administrative remedies" with regard to these Defendants. [ld. at 6.] Second, the
Court noted that Riggs has already been released from prison, thus rendering his request for
injunctive relief moot. [ld. at 7.] Finally, the Magistrate found that Plaintiffs complaint
"presented no evidence to create a question of fact as to the second element of an Eighth
Amendment violation," which requires showing that the Defendants "specifically acted with a
culpable state of mind or were deliberately indifferent to the Plaintiffs health and safety." [ld. at
9.] For these reasons, the Magistrate recommended that the Court grant each of the Defendants'
motions.
Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the
Recommended Disposition to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(c). When no
objections are made, as in this case, this Court is not required to "review ... a magistrate's
factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard." See Thomas v. Am, 474
U.S. 140, 151 (1985). Parties who fail to object to a magistrate judge's report and
recommendation are also barred from appealing a district court's order adopting that report and

recommendation. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this
Court has examined the record and agrees with Magistrate Judge Atkins's Recommended
Disposition. Accordingly, and the Court being sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED as
follows:
1.

The Magistrate's Report and Recommendation [R. 37] is ADOPTED as and for

the Opinion of the Court;
2

2.

The Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss [R. 31,

32, and 36] are GRANTED;

3.

The Plaintiffs action is DISMISSED in its entirety with prejudice; and

4.

All other matters being resolved, JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants will be

entered contemporaneously herewith, and this matter will be STRICKEN from the Court's
active docket.
This

t

tf

day of January, 2016.

3