Webster v. Parker et al

Filing 29

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 25 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint, filed by Javon Webster, 24 MOTION for Reconsideration. For the reasons stated above, the Magistrate Judge recommends that both these motions be denied. Under Rule 72 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party has 14 days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation in which to file any written objections to this Recommendation with the District Court. Any party opposing said objections shall have 14 days from receipt of any objections filed in this Report in which to file any responses to said objections. Failure to file specific objections within 14 days of receipt of this Report and Recommendation can constitute a waiver of further appeal of this Recommendation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 5/15/2018. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(am)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT COLUMBIA
JAVON WEBSTER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff
v.
DR. (f/n/u) COBLE,
Defendant
TO:

No. 1:17-0030
Chief Judge Crenshaw/Brown

THE HONORABLE WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Presently pending are the Plaintiff’s motions seeking

reconsideration of the District Judge’s order (Docket Entry 17)
dismissing some of the Defendants in this matter (Docket Entry 24)
and a motion for leave to amend the complaint to add as additional
defendants Sergeants Gonzales and Truman (Docket Entry 25). For the
reasons stated below the Magistrate Judge recommends that both of
these motions be denied.
BACKGROUND
After considerable difficulties the complaint, which the
Plaintiff originally filed on March 29, 2017, was reviewed by Chief
Judge Crenshaw in a memorandum and order (Docket Entry 17). Chief
Judge Crenshaw allowed the Plaintiff’s complaint to proceed against
Dr. Coble over the Plaintiff’s medical treatment. In a full review
of the Plaintiff’s complaint, Chief Judge Crenshaw dismissed the
complaints against the Defendants Roberts, Staggs, Corizon Medical
Services, Nurse Frank, and Nurse McClain because there were no
factual allegations from which the Court could liberally construe

claims against these Defendants. Chief Judge Crenshaw pointed out
that none of these Defendants appeared in any of the Plaintiff’s
exhibits and they were therefore dismissed (Docket Entry 17, p. 4).
Claims against the Defendants because of their handling
or mishandling of grievances were dismissed because there is no
constitutional right to a grievance procedure (Docket Entry 17, pp.
5 and 6). The sole remaining Defendant was Dr. Coble, who was the
Plaintiff’s physician at the prison.
After reviewing the Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration the Magistrate Judge finds that the Plaintiff has added
nothing to the thorough analysis by Chief Judge Crenshaw on initial
review and recommends that the motion for reconsideration be
denied.
The Plaintiff, at the same time, filed a motion to add
Sergeants Gonzales and Truman alleging the mishandling of his
grievances (Docket Entry 25). Chief Judge Crenshaw has previously
addressed the fact that there is no constitutional right to a
grievance procedure, pointing out that 1983 relief will not be
granted against prison officials whose only involvement was the
denial of administrative remedies, citing Summers v. Leis, 368 F.3d
881, 888 (6th Cir. 2004).
Chief Judge Crenshaw also noted that a prisoner has no
constitutional right to have his grievances responded to in a
particular way, citing Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 468 (1983).

2

The

sole

complaint

Chief

Judge

Crenshaw

allowed

to

proceed was the claim against Dr. Coble.
RECOMMENDATION
For

the

reasons

stated

above,

the

Magistrate

Judge

recommends that both these motions be denied.
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
any

party

has

14

days

from

receipt

of

this

Report

and

Recommendation in which to file any written objections to this
Recommendation with the District Court. Any party opposing said
objections shall have 14 days from receipt of any objections filed
in this Report in which to file any responses to said objections.
Failure to file specific objections within 14 days of receipt of
this Report and Recommendation can constitute a waiver of further
appeal of this Recommendation. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 106 S.
Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985), Reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986).
ENTER this 15th day of May, 2018.
/s/
Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge

3