Jones v. Outlaw
Filing
26
FINAL JUDGMENT - Order adopting REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; Plaintiff's objections to Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED; Report and Recommendation APPROVED AND ADOPTED; case DISMISSED for failure to state a claim counting as a "STRIKE". Signed by District Judge Michael P. Mills on 8/31/15. (cr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
ROBERT CHARLES JONES
PLAINTIFF
v.
No. 3:14CV219-MPM-DAS
TIMOTHY OUTLAW
DEFENDANT
FINAL JUDGMENT
Having considered the file and records in this action, including the Report and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and the objections to the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds that the plaintiff’s objections are without merit and that the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation should be approved and adopted as the opinion
of the court.
In his objections, Jones presents several arguments the court will address: (1) that, in his
claim for failure to protect him from attack, he meant that inmates should not have unfettered
access to a microwave oven, and (2) that, as part of his claim for denial of medical treatment, he
believes that the defendants should have transported him to a burn center for treatment. Jones’
claim regarding deficient monitoring of the microwave sounds only in negligence, and negligent
conduct by prison officials does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Daniels v.
Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 106 S.Ct. 662 (1986), Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 106 S.Ct. 668
(1986). This claim is without merit and will be dismissed. Similarly, as to his claim for denial of
adequate medical care, Jones believes that he should have been transferred to a burn center for
treatment. However, his medical staff at the Marshall County Correctional Facility clearly did
not believe so, as he was not transferred to a burn center. As set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation, a prisoner’s mere disagreement with medical treatment provided by
prison officials does not state a claim against the prison for violation of the Eighth Amendment by
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Gibbs v. Grimmette, 254 F.3d 545 (5th Cir.2001),
Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997). In this case, Jones simply disagrees with the
course of treatment he received, and this claim will be dismissed, as well.
It is ordered:
1.
That the plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation are OVERRULED;
2.
That the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge is
hereby APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the court; and
3.
That the instant case is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted, counting as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
SO ORDERED, this, the 31st day of August, 2015.
/s/ MICHAEL P. MILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
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?