Anderson v. Commissioner Tennessee Department of Corrections et al

Filing 70

ORDER: Accordingly, the Court rules as follows: (1) The R & R 63 is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED; (2) The Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants Schofield 38 and Bell 49 are hereby GRANTED; (3) The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant s Andrews, Arnold, Correctional Medical Services, and Sator 43 is hereby GRANTED; and (4) This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to enter Judgment in a separate document in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. It is SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 5/31/12. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(tmw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
TREVOR MANNY ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER, TENNESSEE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:11-0806
Judge Sharp

ORDER
In this case alleging the denial of adequate medical care brought by Plaintiff Trevor Manny
Anderson, a prisoner at the Riverbend Maximum Security Institution, the Magistrate Judge has
entered a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Docket No. 63) which recommends: (1) granting
the Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendant Derrick Schofield (Docket No. 38) and Ricky Bell
(Docket No. 49); (2) granting the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Desiree
Andrews, Wanda Arnold, Correctional Medical Services, Inc., and Innocentes Sator (Docket No.
43); and (3) dismissing this case. Despite being specifically advised in the R & R that any
objections to the R & R were to be filed within fourteen days from receipt, Plaintiff has filed no
objections.
Having reviewed the matter de novo in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. The claims against Defendants Schofield and
Bell are subject to dismissal because they are immune from suit in their official capacity, and cannot
be held liable under a theory of respondeat superior in their individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. §

1

1983. Further, Plaintiff has wholly failed to show that any of the Defendants acted with deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs so as to support an Eighth Amendment claim. Finally, the
allegations of medical malpractice do not lie within the ken of ordinary laymen, and Plaintiff does
not offer any expert testimony to establish causation as required by Tennessee law.
Accordingly, the Court rules as follows:
(1) The R & R (Docket No. 63) is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED;
(2) The Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants Schofield (Docket No. 38) and Bell (Docket
No. 49) are hereby GRANTED;
(3) The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Andrews, Arnold, Correctional
Medical Services, and Sator (Docket No. 43) is hereby GRANTED; and
(4) This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The Clerk is directed to enter Judgment in a separate document in accordance with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
It is SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2