Baladez v. Patterson et al

Filing 95

MEMORANDUM ORDER overruling plaintiff's objections and adopting the magistrate judge's 79 , 84 , and 85 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 3/6/2017. (bjc, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION SANDRO BALADEZ § VS. § P. PATTERSON, ET AL. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-412 MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Plaintiff Sandro Baladez, a prisoner confined at the Stiles Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID), proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Laura Midkiff, Gideon Daniel, Felicia Davis, Sandra Murphy, Pinkee Patel, Brad Livingston, and Christopher Carter. The Court ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court. The magistrate judge recommends dismissing the claims against defendants Livingston and Carter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), and granting the motions to dismiss filed by the remaining defendants. The Court has received and considered the Reports and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge, along with the record and the pleadings. Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report and Recommendation concerning the dismissal of defendants Livingston and Carter. Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge’s Reports and Recommendations regarding the remaining defendants’ motions to dismiss. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the Court concludes the objections are without merit. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Patel was not sued in her supervisory capacity, and that she actually took part in denying plaintiff medical treatment. However, plaintiff’s allegations do not demonstrate that he had a serious medical need and that defendant Patel was deliberately indifferent to a risk of harm to the plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. ORDER Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections (document nos. 87 and 93) are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the reports of the magistrate judge (document no. 79, 84, and 85) are ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge’s recommendations. SIGNED this the 6 day of March, 2017. ____________________________ Thad Heartfield United States District Judge 2

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?