Sawyers v. Edwards et al

Filing 110

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 107 of Magistrate Judge Bernard M. Jones...the court adopts the report and recommendation and denies plaintiff's motion requesting a full medical exam 103 ; this order does not terminate the referral. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 9/24/2018. (cla)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ANDREW L. SAWYERS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHRIS WEST, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CIV-17-0052-HE

ORDER
Plaintiff Andrew L. Sawyers, a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed this § 1983 action alleging defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs while he was housed at the Canadian County Detention Center
(“CCDC”). Consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), the matter was referred to
Magistrate Judge Bernard M. Jones for initial proceedings. The magistrate judge has issued
a Report and Recommendation recommending that a motion plaintiff filed seeking a
medical exam be denied. Plaintiff has filed an objection to the Report.
In this action plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights were violated while he
was incarcerated at CCDC. He currently is in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of
Corrections (DOC). See Doc. Nos. 107, p. 2; 60.1 After the dispositive motion deadline
and after defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff filed a motion seeking
an order requiring DOC to send him for a “full medical exam” at a “non-affiliated medical
facility.” Doc. #103, p. 1. The magistrate judge construed the motion as one seeking

1

Page references to briefs and exhibits are to the CM/ECF document and page number.

injunctive relief and concluded it should be denied for various reasons. He noted that the
motion was directed to a non-party and plaintiff had provided no facts which suggested
that DOC was in “active concert or participation with CCDC officials so as to be CCDC’s
alter ego in this matter.” Doc. #107, p. 3. He further noted that plaintiff had already
received a medical examination while in DOC custody and had failed to explain why that
examination was insufficient.
In his objection plaintiff discusses multiple violations of DOC legal mail policy that
have allegedly occurred. But what he fails to do is explain why his prior medical
examination, which included medical images of his spine, was inadequate. See Doc. #1062.2 The court therefore concludes plaintiff has not demonstrated the magistrate judge erred
in concluding plaintiff is not entitled to an independent medical examination.
Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Jones and denies plaintiff’s motion requesting a full medical exam [Doc. #103]. This
order does not terminate the referral.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated this 24th day of September, 2018.

2

The medical examination was a follow-up to plaintiff’s surgery and occurred after
plaintiff was transferred from CCDC. See Doc. #102-1, pp. 5-7;106-2, p. 1.

2