Howard v. Saucier et al

Filing 70

ORDER granting 43 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 59 Motion to Strike ; denying as moot 61 Motion to Strike ; adopting Report and Recommendations re 64 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 3/17/2016 (ECW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
DWIGHT ANTONIO HOWARD

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-66(DCB)(MTP)

RUTH SAUCIER and
DR. JAMES BURKE

DEFENDANTS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This cause is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Michael T.
Parker’s Report and Recommendation (docket entry 64), and on the
plaintiff’s Objections thereto (docket entries 67 and 69).

Having

carefully reviewed same, as well as the other pleadings in this
case, the Court finds as follows:
Magistrate Judge Parker notes that the plaintiff, Dwight
Antonio Howard’s claims arise from medical treatment he received
while

incarcerated

(“WCCF”).

In

his

at

Wilkinson

thorough

County

Report

and

Correctional

Facility

Recommendation,

the

magistrate judge finds that the plaintiff has failed to offer any
evidence showing that the defendants’ actions were objectively
unreasonable, that the defendants acted with the requisite state of
mind, or that any lack of information affected the plaintiff’s
right to accept or reject proposed treatment.

The plaintiff’s

Objections do not raise any fact issues that contradict the
magistrate judge’s findings.
Magistrate Judge Parker concludes that the motion for summary
judgment (docket entry 43) filed by defendants Ruth Saucier and Dr.

James Burke should be granted, that the Complaint filed against the
defendants should be dismissed, and that the defendants’ motions to
strike (docket entries 59 and 61) should be denied as moot.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker’s
Report and Recommendation (docket entry 64) is ADOPTED as the
findings of this Court;
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment (docket
entry 43) filed by defendants Ruth Saucier and Dr. James Burke is
GRANTED, and all claims against said defendants are dismissed with
prejudice;
FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants’ motions to strike (docket
entries 59 and 61) are DENIED AS MOOT.
A final judgment dismissing this action in accordance with
Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall follow.
SO ORDERED, this the 17th day of March, 2016.

/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2