Webster v. Parker et al

Filing 35

ORDER: Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 29 ) is ADOPTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, construed as timely objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 31 ), is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for Reco nsideration of the Courts October 31, 2017 Order (Doc. No. 24 ) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Add 2 Additional Defendants (Doc. No. 25 ) is DENIED. This case is RETURNED to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 6/26/2018. (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
JAVON WEBSTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. (f/n/u) COBLE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:17-cv-00030
CHIEF JUDGE CRENSHAW

ORDER
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation from the Magistrate Judge,
recommending the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s October 31,
2017 Order dismissing certain defendants and deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the
Complaint to add two additional defendants. (Doc. No. 29.) Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Report and Recommendation, which the Court construes as timely
objections. (Doc. No. 31.) For the following reasons, the objections are overruled and the Report
and Recommendation is adopted.
On October 31, 2017, the Court reviewed the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Upon review, the Court dismissed five defendants who were never mentioned in the Complaint.
(Doc. No. 17 at 4.) On the retaliation claims, the Court found that Plaintiff did not describe how
Defendants retaliated against him, so the Court dismissed those claims. (Id. at 5.) The Court
dismissed the claims against Dr. Coble’s supervisory officials because they did not knowingly
acquiesce in Dr. Coble’s allegedly-unconstitutional behavior. (Id.) Last, the Court dismissed the
claims against the defendants who denied his administrative grievances because there is no

constitutional right to have grievances responded to in a particular way. (Id. at 6.) Only the
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need claim remains against Dr. Coble. (Id.)
Courts may reconsider interlocutory orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
Rodriguez v. Tenn. Laborers Health & Welfare Fund, 89 F. App’x 949, 959 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing
Mallory v .Eyrich, 922 F.2d 1273, 1282 (6th Cir. 1991)). “Traditionally, courts will find
justification for reconsidering interlocutory orders when there is (1) an intervening change of law;
(2) new evidence available; or (3) a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id.
(citing Reich v. Hall Holding Co., 990 F. Supp. 955, 965 (N.D. Ohio 1998)).
Plaintiff first objects to the dismissal of Tony Parker and Cherry Lindamood, who reviewed
his administrative grievances, for the same reason as previously raised. (Doc. No. 31 at 2.) As the
Court previously stated, Ҥ 1983 relief will not be granted against prison officials whose only
involvement was the denial of administrative remedies.” (Doc. No. 17 at 6 (citing Summers v.
Leis, 368 F.3d 881, 888 (6th Cir. 2004))). This objection is overruled.
Plaintiff also objects in a conclusory fashion to the Court’s dismissal of all of the other
previously-dismissed defendants. (Doc. No. 31 at 3.) For the reasons stated in the Court’s previous
Order (Doc. No. 17), as outlined above, the Court does not find that it committed clear error and
there is no need to prevent manifest injustice. Plaintiff will be able to proceed on his deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need claim against Dr. Coble after he is served.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 29) is ADOPTED.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, construed as timely objections to the Report and
Recommendation (Doc. No. 31), is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court’s October 31, 2017 Order (Doc. No. 24) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
Amend Complaint to Add 2

2

Additional Defendants (Doc. No. 25) is DENIED. This case is RETURNED to the Magistrate
Judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

3