Harris v. Pearl River County, Miss et al
Filing
42
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 41 Report and Recommendations, and granting 39 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Pearl River County, Miss. Plaintiff Timothy Franklin Harris's claims are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Chief District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 1/29/2025 (PKS)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY FRANKLIN HARRIS
v.
PEARL RIVER COUNTY, MISS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 1:23cv230-HSO-BWR
DEFENDANT
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION [41], GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION [39] FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [41]
of United States Magistrate Judge Bradley W. Rath, entered in this case on
December 20, 2024, and the Motion [39] for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant
Pearl River County, Mississippi, on August 21, 2024. Based upon a review of the
record and relevant legal authority, the Magistrate Judge recommended that
Defendant’s Motion [39] for Summary Judgment be granted and that Plaintiff
Timothy Franklin Harris’s claims be dismissed with prejudice. R. & R. [41] at 16.
Based upon a review of the record, the Court finds that because Plaintiff has
not produced evidence sufficient to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether he was deprived of any federal constitutional right, the Report and
Recommendation [41] should be adopted, Defendant’s Motion [39] for Summary
Judgment should be granted, and Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed with
prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
On September 8, 2023, while he was incarcerated at the Lenoir Rowell
Criminal Justice Center in Poplarville, Mississippi (“Pearl River County Jail” or
“PRCJ”), pro se Plaintiff Timothy Franklin Harris (“Plaintiff” or “Harris”) filed the
Complaint [1] in this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Compl. [1] at 1. Plaintiff
names Pearl River County, Mississippi (the “County”), as the sole Defendant,
advancing causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See id.; Order [12] at 1. He is
proceeding in forma pauperis. See Order [6]. Plaintiff clarified his allegations at
an Omnibus Hearing held on April 23, 2024, which operated as a Spears1 hearing.
See Min. Entry, Apr. 23, 2024; Order [36]; Tr. [37].
Following the hearing, the Magistrate Judge outlined Plaintiff’s claims as
follows:
The events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred while Plaintiff was
housed at the Pearl River County Jail (“PRCJ”) in Poplarville,
Mississippi. From the time Plaintiff entered PRCJ, he believes that his
medical needs were overlooked, disregarded as frivolous, and repeatedly
misdiagnosed. Compl. [1] at 4. From September 2022 through March
2023, Plaintiff repeatedly advised his custodians that his stomach and
back hurt. Compl. [1-1] at 1-3. Plaintiff claims that his pain
intensified over several months, culminating in vomiting and
uncontrollable diarrhea.
Id.
He believes that something has
“rupture[d]” internally because he also suffered bleeding from an
unspecified location. Letter [3] at 1. Because his mother and sister
both died of stomach cancer, Plaintiff is unsatisfied with the medical
care he received during this time. Compl. [1-1] at 2; Letter [3] at 1.
Order [36] at 1-2.2
See Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 181-82 (5th Cir. 1985).
Before the Omnibus Hearing, Harris was transferred to the Central Mississippi
Correctional Facility in Pearl, Mississippi, see Order [36] at 2, and he is now housed in the
1
2
2
The County filed a Motion [39] for Summary Judgment, arguing that it did
not violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and that Plaintiff was unable to impute
liability against it. See Mot. [39] at 2; Mem. [40] at 5-7. Plaintiff did not file a
response. On December 20, 2024, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and
Recommendation [41] that the County’s Motion [39] should be granted, and that
Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed with prejudice. See R. & R. [41] at 16. To
date, Plaintiff has not filed any Objection to the Report and Recommendation [41],
and the time for doing so has passed. See id.; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); L.U. Civ. R.
72(a)(3).
II. DISCUSSION
Where no party has objected to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of it.
28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which
objection is made.”). In such cases, the Court applies the “clearly erroneous, abuse
of discretion and contrary to law” standard of review. United States v. Wilson, 864
F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute of fact is genuine if the evidence is
such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Dyer v.
custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections at the Stone County Correctional
Facility in Wiggins, Mississippi, see Notice [38] at 1.
3
Houston, 964 F.3d 374, 379 (5th Cir. 2020). If the movant carries this burden, “the
nonmovant must go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial.” Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075
(5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).
Plaintiff’s claims stem from his pretrial detention at PRCJ. See Compl. [1].
A pretrial detainee’s claims of inadequate medical care are adjudicated under the
Fourteenth Amendment. See Cope v. Cogdill, 3 F.4th 198, 206 (5th Cir. 2021).
“For claims related to the medical treatment of a pretrial detainee, [a] court will
find a constitutional violation where an officer: (1) subjectively knew of a
substantial risk of serious harm to the detainee; and (2) responded to that risk with
deliberate indifference,” which is “an extremely high standard to meet.” Ford v.
Anderson Cnty., 102 F.4th 292, 307 (5th Cir. 2024) (per curiam) (quotations
omitted). “[U]nsuccessful medical treatment, acts of negligence, or medical
malpractice do not constitute deliberate indifference.” Id. (quotation omitted).
To establish “municipal liability” under § 1983, “a plaintiff must show: (1) an
official policy (or custom), of which (2) a policy maker can be charged with actual or
constructive knowledge, and (3) a constitutional violation whose moving force is
that policy (or custom).” Id. at 319 (quotations omitted). For a county to be liable,
“a plaintiff must show that the policy was implemented with deliberate indifference
to the known or obvious consequences that a constitutional violation would result.”
Id. (quotations omitted).
4
Based upon the foregoing principles and having conducted the required
review, the Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation [41] is neither
clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation [41] in its entirety as the opinion of this Court and
will dismiss Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.
III.
CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, the Report and
Recommendation [41] of United States Magistrate Judge Bradley W. Rath, entered
in this case on December 20, 2024, is ADOPTED.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, the Motion [39] for
Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Pearl River County, Mississippi, is
GRANTED, and Plaintiff Timothy Franklin Harris’s claims are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 29th day of January, 2025.
s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden
HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?