Varnado v. LeBlanc et al

Filing 91

OPINION Adopting the 89 Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. The Defendant's 74 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part, dismissing any claim made on behalf of other prisoners and any other claim asserted in his Complaint except for his deliberate medical indifference claim against the defendants based on the failure to timely provide him with hernia surgery, and denying the remainder of the defendant's motion. The Plaintiff's 81 Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims and these claims are dismissed without prejudice and this action is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings on the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate medical indifference claim. Signed by Judge John W. deGravelles on 2/20/2015. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
HYMEL VARNADO (#333068)
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 13-348-JWD-SCR
KENNETH NORRIS, ET AL
OPINION
The Court has reviewed the entire record in this case, including the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation dated February 6, 2014 (Doc. 89) and plaintiff's objection and traverse
to the Magistrate Judge's Report (Doc. 90). The Court finds that the findings and conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge are sound and supported by the record. (Doc. 89)
Plaintiff's main complaint is that the Magistrate Judge failed to acknowledge that the
Plaintiff's Request for Admissions be deemed admitted. The Court has reviewed the Magistrate
Judge's Ruling on objection to Untimeliness, Validity of Responses, Motion to Strike to Uphold
FRCP Rules 33 and 36 (Doc. 87) and notes that Plaintiff failed to object to the Magistrate's Ruling.
Furthermore, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions which denied
Plaintiff's motion.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part, dismissing any claim
made on behalf of other prisoners and any other claim asserted in his Complaint except for his
deliberate medical indifference claim against the defendants based on the failure to timely provide
him with hernia surgery, and denying the remainder of the defendants’ motion;
(2) the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied;
(3) the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims and

these claims are dismissed without prejudice; and,
(4) this action is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings on the
plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate medical indifference claim.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on February 20, 2015.

S
JUDGE JOHN W. deGRAVELLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA