Davis v. Corrections Corporation of America et al

Filing 110

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 2 of Magistrate Judge Charles Goodwin...plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief 2 and request for hearing are denied...plaintiff's claims alleging ongoing violation of his Eighth Amendment right s are dismissed without prejudice; plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint by 10/13/2014 if he can correct the fatual deficiencies identified by the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 09/22/2014. (lam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
EZEKIEL DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION
OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CIV-13-1174-HE

ORDER
Plaintiff Ezekiel Davis, appearing pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights.

Consistent with 28 U.S.C.

§636(b)(1)(B) and (C), the matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Charles B. Goodwin,
who has issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that plaintiff’s motion for a
preliminary injunction [Doc. #2] and his request for a hearing should be denied. The
magistrate judge also concluded that plaintiff has not stated plausible claims under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 for ongoing violations of his Eighth Amendment rights through the denial of medical
care. Plaintiff has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation.
Having conducted the required de novo review, the court agrees with Magistrate Judge
Goodwin’s thorough analysis of plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and his
complaint and adopts the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff has not demonstrated he
is entitled to injunctive relief in the form of (1) an order for outside or specialized medical
care or (2) his transfer to a different facility. Plaintiff also has not pleaded a violation of his
Eighth Amendment rights. While the court doubts plaintiff can amend his complaint and
state facts sufficient to demonstrate defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious

medical needs,1 he will be given the opportunity to do so.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief [Doc. #2] and his request for a
hearing are DENIED.

Plaintiff’s claims alleging ongoing violations of his Eighth

Amendment rights are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an
amended complaint by October 13, 2014, if he can correct the factual deficiencies identified
by the magistrate judge in his Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 22nd day of September, 2014.

1

Although his intent is not altogether clear, in his objection plaintiff states he “understand[s]
sua sponte dismissal of the Eighth Amendment medical claim.” Doc. #93, p. 4.

2