Bostic v. Biggs et al

Filing 131

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The undersigned recommends that Plaintiffs motion to add new defendants and assert supplemental claims (Docket Entry No. 74) should be denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 8/8/2016. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JAMES E. BOSTIC,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff
v.
SHARA BIGGS, et al.,
Defendants
TO:

No. 3:14-1068
Judge Trauger/Bryant
Jury Demand

THE HONORABLE ALETA A. TRAUGER
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s second

motion to amend his complaint (Docket Entry No. 74). By this
motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to add as an additional Defendant
“CCA - MDCDF.” Defendants Biggs and Mental Health Cooperative, Inc.
have filed their response in opposition (Docket Entry No. 77).
Plaintiff Bostic has filed a reply (Docket Entry No. 80).
For the reasons stated below, the undersigned Magistrate
Judge recommends that Plaintiff’s second motion for leave to amend
his complaint be denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In his amended complaint (Docket Entry No. 51), Plaintiff
Bostic complains of his conditions of confinement at the Davidson
County Jail. Specifically, the undersigned liberally construes
Plaintiff’s amended complaint to allege deliberate indifference to
Plaintiff’s serious “neurological conditions,” “internal bleeding

conditions,”

“mental

illness,”

and

“common

cold

and

cough.”

Plaintiff also complains that he was denied showers and “rec” for
18 days while confined in the jail’s medical unit in July and
August 2013. Finally, Plaintiff complains that the “two 250 mg
Tylenol pills and antibiotic pills” dispensed by the jail were
insufficient to treat his pain from a toothache in March 2005, and
that the jail nurse failed to call or notify a dentist despite
promising Plaintiff that she would.
ANALYSIS
Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides that “a court should freely give leave [to amend a
pleading] when justice so requires.” Factors that may affect this
determination include undue prejudice to the opposing party, and
futility of the amendment. Seals v. General Motors Corp., 546 F.3d
766, 770 (6th Cir. 2008). Moreover, the granting or refusing of
leave to file a supplemental pleading rests in the discretion of
the trial court. Schuckman v. Rubenstein, 164 F.2d 952 (6th Cir.
1947).
Here, Plaintiff’s proposed amendment is a supplemental
pleading governed by Rule 15(d), since is seeks to add at least one
additional party and relates to events alleged to have occurred
since the filing of the original complaint. Specifically, Plaintiff
seeks to add as an additional defendant “CCA-MDCDF” and seeks to
2

assert claims regarding alleged events occurring at the detention
facility operated by Corrections Corporation of America as a
contractor for the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office. According to
Plaintiff’s

filing,

he

was

transferred

to

this

facility

on

September 10, 2015, almost 17 months after Plaintiff filed his
complaint in this case (Docket Entry No. 74 at 2).
In

light

of

the

foregoing

facts,

the

undersigned

Magistrate Judge finds that to allow Plaintiff to amend his
complaint, yet again, to name new parties and raise new claims
based on alleged events occurring at a new detention facility would
unduly delay the resolution of the claims already in this case and
would

unfairly

Cooperative,

prejudice

by

raising

Defendants
new

Biggs

claims

in

and

which

Mental
they

Health

have

no

involvement.
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned finds that
Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint to add parties (Docket
Entry No. 74) should be denied without prejudice to Plaintiff’s
right to pursue such claims in a new action.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons stated above, the undersigned recommends
that

Plaintiff’s

motion

to

add

new

defendants

and

supplemental claims (Docket Entry No. 74) should be denied.

3

assert

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 8th day of August, 2016.
/s/ John S. Bryant
JOHN S. BRYANT
United States Magistrate Judge

4