Larry L. Lemay v. Correct Care Solutions et al

Filing 53

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 49 ) is hereby ACCEPTED andAPPROVED;(2) Defendant Katherine Ogilvies Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 35 )is hereby GRANTED; and(3) The cla ims against Defendant Katherine Ogilvie are hereby DISMISSED WITHPREJUDICE.This action is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial management inaccordance with Local Rule 16.01 for the claims against the remaining Defendants.It is SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 9/17/13. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(afs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
LARRY LEE LEMAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
KATHERINE OGILVIE,
STEPHANIE STINSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:12-cv-0852
Judge Sharp
Magistrate Judge Knowles

ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of the Magistrate
Judge, recommending that Defendant Katherine Ogilvie’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Docket Entry No. 35) be granted.1 Specifically, the R & R provides in part,
As been noted, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated his Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Docket No. 1. Specifically,
Plaintiff explicitly sues Defendant because she “failed to provide the prescribed
medical treatment as ordered by the physician on-call, and failed to re-test
Plaintiff’s blood sugar level.” Id. at 7.
***
Because Plaintiff has adduced no evidence in a form required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
56 that [Defendant] knew of, and “failed to provide[,] the prescribed medical
treatment as ordered by the physician on-call,” Defendant is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law on this claim.
With regard to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant [] failed to re-test his blood sugar
level, Plaintiff cites no authority that this [act or lack thereof] rises to the level of
a constitutional violation . . . Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to a judgment as
a matter of law on this claim as well.
***

1

Plaintiff did not file a response to the motion for summary judgment. He did, however, seek and receive
two extensions of time to file a response. See (Docket Entry Nos. 38, 40, 44, and 45).
1

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment be GRANTED.
(Docket Entry No. 49 at 6-7). No objections were made to the R & R.2
Where no objections are made to the R & R, “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or
modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Having thoroughly reviewed the
record in this case and the applicable law in accordance with Rule 72(b), the Court will accept
the R & R.
Accordingly, the Court hereby rules as follows:
(1) The Report and Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 49) is hereby ACCEPTED and
APPROVED;
(2) Defendant Katherine Ogilvie’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 35)
is hereby GRANTED; and
(3) The claims against Defendant Katherine Ogilvie are hereby DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
This action is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial management in
accordance with Local Rule 16.01 for the claims against the remaining Defendants.
It is SO ORDERED.

_________________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Plaintiff received the R & R via Certified Mail on July 19, 2013. See (Docket Entry No. 51).
2