Luke v. Capt. Beagron et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 24 . Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 4/20/2017.(cg)(nef Mag. van Meerveld).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JACOB LUKE SR.
CAPT. BEAGRON, ET AL.
SECTION “R” (1)
Plaintiff Jacob Luke, Sr. filed this pro se and in forma pauperis civil
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed de novo Luke’s many
Recommendation, and Luke’s objections, the Court approves the Report and
Recommendation and adopts it as its opinion.
Luke objects to dismissal of his claims for inadequate medical care. He
argues that it is difficult for an inmate like Luke to identify who denied him
medical care. But Luke’s claims for inadequate medical care are not being
dismissed because Luke did not identify the right defendant. Instead, as
explained in the Report and Recommendation, Luke’s claims for inadequate
medical care are dismissed because Luke cannot meet the high bar of
showing that he has “serious medical needs” that are being treated with
“deliberate indifference.” Thompson v. Upshur County, Texas, 245 F.3d.
447, 457 (5th Cir. 2001). This is particularly true because Luke recently told
the Court the he has received both an X-ray and an MRI.1
Accordingly, Jacob Luke, Sr.’s claim against Officer Scott for excessive
force and his claim against Amanda Mustin for interfering with Luke’s right
to counsel may proceed. Luke’s claim against Lieutenant Schwausch for false
arrest is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE to its being asserted again until the
Heck conditions are met. Luke’s remaining claims are DISMISSED WITH
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of April, 2017.
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
R. Doc. 27; R. Doc. 28.
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?