Cloyd v. Corizon Health Care et al

Filing 46

ORDER: Having conducted a de novo review of the matter under Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Brown's recommended disposition. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 41 ) is ADOPTED, the Corizon Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 17 ) is GRANTED, and the claims against those Defendants are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court also FINDS that any appeal of the dismissal of the Corizon Defe ndants would not be taken in good faith. This case is hereby RETURNED to Magistrate Judge Brown for further pretrial case management. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 10/10/2017. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(mg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DIVISION
TIMOTHY W. CLOYD,
Plaintiff,

v.
CORIZON HEALTH CARE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:17-cv-00008
Chief Judge Crenshaw

ORDER
After Plaintiff failed to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 17) filed
by Defendants Corizon Health Inc. and Corizon Inc., Magistrate Judge Brown entered a Report and
Recommendation (Doc. No. 41) recommending that the Motion be granted. The basis for the
recommendation is that Plaintiff complains about the health care he received at the South Central
Corrections Facility in 2016, yet Corizon did not provide medical care at that facility after 2013.
On the day objections were due, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No.
45) in which he claims he now needs an MRI. While that filing also contains several pages titled
“Object to Summary Judgment,” (id. at 8-10), Plaintiff does not address the assertion that the
Corizon Defendants are not, and were not, responsible for his medical care at the time of the events
giving rise to his Complaint.
Therefore, and having conducted a de novo review of the matter under Rule 72 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Brown’s recommended
disposition. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 41) is ADOPTED, the
Corizon Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 17) is GRANTED, and the claims
1

against those Defendants are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court also FINDS
that any appeal of the dismissal of the Corizon Defendants would not be taken in good faith.
This case is hereby RETURNED to Magistrate Judge Brown for further pretrial case
management.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2