Meier v. Murray

Filing 169

MEMORANDUM ORDER overruling objections and adopting 165 Report and Recommendation. Deft's motion for summary judgment is granted. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 7/9/12. (tkd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
JAMES EDWARD MEIER

§

VS.

§

RUSSELL MCDONALD

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:03cv1483

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff James Edward Meier, an inmate confined at the Stiles Unit of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se,
filed the above-styled civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Russell
McDonald. Plaintiff asserts a claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.

The

court previously referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States
Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable orders of this
court.
The defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge has
submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge recommending the
motion be granted.
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge, along with the record and pleadings. Plaintiff filed objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. The court must therefore conduct a de novo
review of the objections.
After carefully considering the objections filed by the plaintiff, the court is of the opinion
the objections are without merit. The Magistrate Judge recommended the motion for summary
judgment be granted because he concluded plaintiff’s claim was barred by the applicable statute
of limitations. The Magistrate Judge concluded plaintiff’s claim regarding an incorrect diagnosis
by the defendant accrued in 1997, when he learned or should have learned his condition had been
misdiagnosed and thereby suffered an injury. See Burrell v. Newsome, 883 F.2d 416, 418 (5th

Cir. 1989). In his objections, plaintiff asserts that, in essence, that his claim has not yet accrued.
He asserts he still does not know what injury he suffered as a result of the misdiagnosis,
apparently because he has not yet received a correct diagnosis. However, based on the
authorities cited by the Magistrate Judge, plaintiff’s claim accrued in 1997, when he was told that
the diagnosis of the defendant was incorrect. At that point, plaintiff had suffered an injury as a
result of the defendant’s actions, even if he was not yet sure precisely what the injury was. The
case of Moore v. Sherman Police Dept., 1995 WL 581433 (5th Cir. Aug. 22, 1995), which was
cited by the Magistrate Judge, establishes that in a case based on failure to make a proper
diagnosis, the plaintiff sustains his injury at the point he is told his initial diagnosis was
incorrect.1 As plaintiff’s claim accrued when he suffered an injury, his claim is barred by the
applicable statute of limitations.
Plaintiff also takes issue with two statements contained in the Report and
Recommendation regarding his factual allegations. In the first full paragraph on page 2 of the
Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge states: “He [the plaintiff] states that on
September 18, 1996, the defendant told him that under the guidelines established by the prison
system, carpal tunnel syndrome was classified as not being life threatening, making surgery to
treat the condition elective. He states he was also told that when his condition became serious
enough, he would receive treatment.” Plaintiff states he never made such a statement. However,
the quoted sentences are an accurate paraphrase of a statement made by plaintiff in a response
(doc. no. 58) he made to a court order directing him to provide additional information regarding
his claim.
In addition, in the third full paragraph of page 2 of the Report and Recommendation, the
Magistrate Judge states: “Plaintiff states he was subsequently told that if he had immediately
received treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome, tests could have been performed which would
have correctly diagnosed the condition from which he suffers.” Plaintiff again states he never

1

Moore was an unpublished decision. However, as it was issued before January 1, 1996, Fifth Circuit
Rule 47.5.3 provides that it constitutes precedent.

made such a statement. However, on page 4 of his original complaint, plaintiff states he believes
that if his concerns had been properly addressed, tests could have been performed which could
have provided the correct diagnosis and prevented the damage from expanding to the point where
it could not be reversed. While there may be a slight difference between what the Magistrate
Judge wrote and what plaintiff stated, this difference has no bearing on the resolution of this
lawsuit.
ORDER
Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the report of the Magistrate Judge is
ADOPTED. The defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. A final judgment
shall be entered dismissing this lawsuit.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9 day of July, 2012.

___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge