Kuot v. John Doe Medical Contractor et al

Filing 183

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Pending before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. No. 179 ), recommending the Court grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. Nos. 139 , 166 , 168 ). The Court has reviewed the R&R and each of the Plaintiff's objections, and conducted a de novo review of the record. For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes Plaintiff's objections are without merit and are OVERRULED, and the R&R i s ADOPTED in its entirety. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Based on the numerous Amended Complaints already filed with the Court, as discussed in the R&R, Plaintiff's Motion 171 to Amend Complaint is DENIED. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion 176 to Clarify. This Order shall constitute the final judgment in this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 1/15/2018. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(mg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
GAI KUOT #507979,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 1:16-cv-0006
DISTRICT JUDGE CAMPBELL
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
FRENSLEY

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case has been reassigned to the undersigned Judge.
Pending before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
(Doc. No. 179), recommending the Court grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. Nos. 139,
166, 168). Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R (Doc. No. 180) and Defendant’s responded to the
objections. (Doc. Nos. 181, 182). The Court has reviewed the R&R and each of the Plaintiff’s
objections, and conducted a de novo review of the record. For the reasons set forth below, the
Court concludes Plaintiff’s objections are without merit and are OVERRULED, and the R&R is
ADOPTED in its entirety.
I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.03(b)(3), a district court reviews de novo
any portion of a report and recommendation to which a specific objection is made. United States
v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001). General or conclusory objections are insufficient. See
Zimmerman v. Cason, 354 F. App'x 228, 230 (6th Cir. 2009); Lea v. United States Dep't of Agric.,
2018 WL 721381, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 6, 2018) (“A general objection, or one that merely

1

restates the arguments previously presented, does not sufficiently identify alleged errors on the
part of the magistrate judge.”). Thus, “only those specific objections to the magistrate’s report
made to the district court will be preserved for appellate review.” Id. (quoting Smith v. Detroit
Fed’n of Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987)). In conducting the review, the court may
“accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
II.

ANALYSIS

The relevant facts in this case are summarized by the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. No.
179), and are adopted in its entirety for purposes of this Order. Despite the requirement that a party
object specifically to a magistrate judge’s R&R and not simply restate previous arguments,
Plaintiff filed objections, many of which essentially re-state the arguments previously made in his
responses to Defendants’ motion to dismiss and amended Complaints. The Court, nevertheless,
has conducted a de novo review of the record and will attempt to address Plaintiff’s objections.
Plaintiff essentially restates the facts in his amended Complaints in an attempt to show the
Court he, in fact, states a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. (Doc. No. 180). Plaintiff argues the
numerous factual allegations in his amended Complaint are the “aggregate of operative facts.” (Id.
at 4). Due to the multiple Defendants and longer periods of time over which the violations against
him occurred, Plaintiff asserts he must include more “short and plain statements”
in his Complaint. (Id.). The Magistrate correctly found Plaintiff failed to adhere to Fed. R. Civ. P.
8, despite the Orders from Judge Haynes and Judge Crenshaw to do so. Having conducted a de
novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s determinations and Plaintiff’s objections, the Court
concludes the objections are without merit, and the R&R findings of whether Plaintiff’s Amended

2 

Complaint complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 should be adopted. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss is GRANTED.
On May 16, 2018, Plaintiff again filed a Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. No. 171) while
the Defendants’ Third Motion to Dismiss was pending before the Court. (Doc. No. 168). Based on
the numerous Amended Complaints already filed with the Court, as discussed in the R&R,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint is DENIED.
On June 8, 2018, Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Clarify the Applicable Pleading Standard
that Distinguishes between Requisite Operative Facts and Unnecessary Detailed Factual
Allegations (Doc. No. 176), and Defendant’s responded. (Doc. No. 177). The Sixth Circuit has
established that prisoner and pro se litigants must follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
the Court does not have an obligation to create a plaintiff’s claims. See Payne v. Sec’y of Treas.,
73 F. App’x 836, 837 (6th Cir. 2003); Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989).
Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Clarify.1
This Order shall constitute the final judgment in this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
It is so ORDERED.
____________________________________
WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

The Court also notes that Plaintiff had numerous opportunities to file a Complaint that adhered
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. The Court gave Plaintiff guidance on the appropriate manner to form his
Complaint in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3