VILLEGAS V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 34

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 32 Report and Recommendations, 27 Motion to Dismiss filed by United States of America (NEF and ORDER mailed to Plaintiff) Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan, III on 8/11/17 (MGB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
ISAAC ELI VILLEGAS
V.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-856-DPJ-FKB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEFENDANT
ORDER

This case brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671–2680, is before
the Court on the Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment [27] filed by Defendant the
United States of America, and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) [32] of United States
Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball. Judge Ball concluded that the undisputed facts established that
the correctional officer’s actions that allegedly injured Plaintiff were discretionary and therefore
recommended that summary judgment be granted. Upon review of the record, the Court agrees
with Judge Ball’s conclusions.
The Court mailed a copy of the R&R to Plaintiff at the address listed on the docket sheet,
and on August 10, 2017, the mail was returned to the Court as undeliverable. Mail Returned
[33]. The envelope indicates that Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at the Federal Correctional
Complex in Terre Haute, Indiana. Id. On November 3, 2016, the Court notified Plaintiff that
“[f]ailure to advise the Court of a change of address . . . will be deemed as a purposeful delay
and contumacious act by Plaintiff and may result in the dismissal of this case.” Order [22].
Plaintiff obviously did not notify the Court of a change of address, and this failure alone could
justify dismissal of his case. Nevertheless, the Court has considered the merits of Plaintiff’s

lawsuit and concludes that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted for the
reasons articulated by Judge Ball in the R&R.1
For the foregoing reasons, the R&R [32] is adopted as the finding of this Court.
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment [27] is granted, and this case is
dismissed with prejudice. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 11th day of August, 2017.
s/ Daniel P. Jordan III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Should Plaintiff re-emerge and provide the Court with an updated address, he may
move to reopen the case. But the deficiencies in his summary-judgment response noted by Judge
Ball persist. See R&R [32] at 5.
2