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, )

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