Robinett v. Gernale et al
ORDER overruling objections and adopting the magistrate judge's 43 Report and Recommendation. Defendant Black's motion to dismiss is granted and the claim against defendant Black is dismissed. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 9/25/2014. (bjc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
VIRGILIO GERNALE, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12cv489
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Angela Robinett, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled civil rights lawsuit againstVirgilio
Gernale and Octavius Black. The court previously referred this matter to the Honorable Zack
Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636 and applicable orders of this court.
Defendant Black has filed a motion asking that the claim against him be dismissed pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Magistrate Judge has submitted a
Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge concerning the motion. The
Magistrate Judge recommends 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 Report
and Recommendation. The court must therefore conduct a de novo review of the objections.
The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the claim against defendant Black in her
official capacity is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. With respect to the claim against defendant
Black in her individual capacity, the Magistrate Judge concluded defendant Black was entitled to
qualified immunity because plaintiff’s allegations did not demonstrate she acted with deliberate
indifference to her serious medical needs. In her objections, plaintiff included additional allegations
against defendant Black. However, even when these allegations are considered, plaintiff has still
failed to show defendant Black was aware of facts indicating plaintiff was subject to a substantial
risk of serious harm. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994). While plaintiff describes
the contents of a letter she sent to defendant Black, she has not shown defendant Black received the
letter. Further, the contents of the letter demonstrate that defendant Gernale, a physician, had not
yet provided plaintiff with treatment. However, the contents of the letter do not show defendant
Gernale refused to listen to plaintiff’s complaints, but, instead, only show he did not believe the
treatment requested by plaintiff was appropriate. A disagreement as to proper treatment is
insufficient to demonstrate deliberate indifference. Gilbert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir.
2006). As a result, the allegations against defendant Black are insufficient to meet the “extremely
high standard” applicable to claims based upon deliberate indifference. See Domino v. Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, 293 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001). Defendant Black is therefore
entitled to qualified immunity.
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 as the opinion of the court. Defendant Black’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and
the claim against defendant Black is DISMISSED.
SIGNED this the 25 day of September, 2014.
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?