Taylor v. First Medical Management et al

Filing 216

ORDER: Finding that the magistrate judge did not err, the court ACCEPTS in its entirety the magistrate judge's recommended disposition. Accordingly, the Objection is OVERRULED; the Motions to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 180 , 199 ) are GRANT ED, and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The magistrate judge's Order denying the Motion to Re-Issue Summons as futile is AFFIRMED, as the ruling was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(afs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

JAMES WILLIAM TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
FIRST MEDICAL MANAGEMENT
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:10-cv-00451
Judge Aleta A. Trauger

ORDER
Before the court is the plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. No. 207) to the magistrate judge’s
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) and Order (Doc. No. 202), recommending that two
separate Motions to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 180, 199) be granted and that this action be dismissed in
its entirety with prejudice, ordering that the plaintiff’s Motion to Re-Issue Summons (Doc. No.
190) be denied and that a Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Supplemental Pleadings (Doc. No. 198) be
granted. The court construes the plaintiff’s filing as objecting both to the recommendation that
the Motions to Dismiss be granted and to the order denying the Motion to Re-Issue Summons as
futile.
The plaintiff objects very generally to the R&R and the Order, asserting that “each
defendant has acted with deliberate indifference toward the plaintiff’s serious medical indicated
need when delaying and denying plaintiff prescribed pain medication, antibiotics and physical
therapy” and that their actions have had permanent adverse consequences. (Doc. No. 207, at 2.)
The plaintiff recognizes that, to establish a claim of deliberate indifference under Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994), a plaintiff must establish both an objective and a subjective

2
component. He argues that he has alleged facts supporting both components with respect to each
and every defendant named in his Complaint. The TDOC defendants filed a Response to the
plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. No. 213), and the plaintiff filed a Reply (Doc. No. 214).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the court has conducted a de novo review of the Objections and the record as a whole.
Finding that the magistrate judge did not err, the court ACCEPTS in its entirety the magistrate
judge’s recommended disposition. Accordingly, the Objection is OVERRULED; the Motions to
Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 180, 199) are GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
The magistrate judge’s Order denying the Motion to Re-Issue Summons as futile is
AFFIRMED, as the ruling was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
This is the final Order in this action, for purposes of Rule 58, Fed. R. Civ. P.
It is so ORDERED.
ENTER this 21st day of February 2018.

ALETA A. TRAUGER
United States District Judge