Hubbard v. South Mississippi Correctional Institute et al

Filing 51

ORDER granting Defendants' 36 42 Motions for Summary Judgment; and adopting the Magistrate Judge's 49 Report and Recommendations dismissing Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. A separate Judgment shall be entered in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on September 3, 2014 (dsl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT ANTHONY HUBBARD, #109084
V.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-498-KS-MTP

JOHNNIE DENMARK, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Plaintiff filed this Section 1983 action claiming that Defendants violated his
Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide adequate medical treatment and
appropriate living conditions. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Defendants prevented
him from seeing medical staff after he was bitten by a spider, misdiagnosed the spider
bite as a staph infection, failed to follow the nurse practitioner’s instructions for
treatment, failed to schedule an appointment with a doctor, and failed to address a
known spider infestation in the building where Plaintiff was housed.1 Defendants filed
Motions for Summary Judgment [36, 42] as to all of Plaintiff’s claims, and Plaintiff
responded [42].
The Magistrate Judge entered his Report and Recommendation [49], in which
he recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment [36,
42] on the basis that Plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as
to Defendants’ commission of any constitutional violations. After reviewing the record
and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation [49] is
both factually and legally accurate, and that it should be adopted as the opinion of the
1

A transcript of Plaintiff’s Spears hearing is at docket number [36-2].

Court.
Plaintiff asserted two objections [50] to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation [49]. First, Plaintiff argues that each Defendant “showed a reckless
disregard for Hubbard’s living condition [sic] and medical treatment.” In other words,
Plaintiff believes the Magistrate Judge is wrong. Plaintiff failed, however, to
specifically address his claims or the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. The Court is not
“required to reiterate the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge.” Koetting
v. Thompson, 995 F.2d 37, 40 (5th Cir. 1993). For the reasons stated in the Report and
Recommendation [49], this generalized objection is without merit.
Next, Plaintiff argues that summary judgment should not be granted because
he has not been provided a “copy of the log in sheet for medical treatment” and
granting summary judgment will deprive him of due process of law. The Court
addressed this issue in the Magistrate Judge’s order [44] of March 26, 2014. Plaintiff
was provided his full medical records [41] in discovery, and they show both the dates
upon which he received medical treatment and the nature of that treatment.
Regardless, any alleged “log in sheet” is irrelevant to the bases of the Court’s decision
and, therefore, Defendants’ alleged failure to produce it is also irrelevant.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court conducted an independent review
of the entire record and a de novo review of the matters raised by Plaintiff’s objections.
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are without
merit. The Court further concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation [49] is an accurate statement and analysis of the law and facts. The
2

Court adopts it as the opinion of the Court and grants Defendants’ Motions for
Summary Judgment [36, 42]. Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice. The
Court will enter a separate judgment in accordance with Rule 58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 3rd day of September, 2014.
s/Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3