Gullatt v. Delone et al

Filing 72

ORDER overruling objections and adopting 69 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Michael J. Truncale on 8/29/24. (tkd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
HERMAN P. GULLATT, JR.

§

VS.

§

EDDIE DELONE, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:22-CV-255

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Herman P. Gullatt, Jr., a prisoner confined at the Stiles Unit of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID), proceeding pro se
and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Stiles Unit
Practice Manager Edward Delone, Warden Christopher Norsworthy, Nurse Practitioner Emma
Davis, and Stiles Unit Practice Manager Jacquelyn Womack.
The Court ordered that this matter be referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for
consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court.

The magistrate judge

recommends granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and dismissing the action
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge, filed pursuant to such order, along with the record and the pleadings. Plaintiff
filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.
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 of all the pleadings and

the relevant case law, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s objections lack merit for the reasons stated
in the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation.
Defendants argued that they were entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff failed to
exhaust administrative remedies with respect to the claims against them before he filed this civil
action. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion, except with respect to Plaintiff’s
claim that Defendant Delone failed to properly address his grievances. The magistrate judge
recommended dismissing that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) as frivolous and for failure
to state a claim. In his objections, Plaintiff raises new claims that Defendant Delone failed to train
and supervise his employees. Even if those claims were exhausted in his administrative remedies,
Plaintiff’s allegations do not state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff may state a claim against Defendant Delone by showing: (1) the defendant failed
to train or supervise his subordinates; (2) a causal link exists between the failure to train or supervise
and the violation of Plaintiff’s rights; and (3) the failure to train or supervise amounts to deliberate
indifference. Mesa v. Prejean, 543 F.3d 264, 274 (5th Cir. 2008). A single instance of lack of
training or supervision is generally not sufficient to demonstrate deliberate indifference, unless the
plaintiff shows that “the highly predictable consequence of a failure to train would result in the
specific injury suffered.” Hutcheson v. Dallas Cnty., 994 F.3d 477, 482 (5th Cir. 2021). The singleincident exception is not generally available unless the defendant provided absolutely no training to
his subordinates. Id.
Plaintiff did not allege any facts in support of his conclusory assertions that Defendant
Delone failed to train or supervise his employees. A defendant cannot be held liable based on
general allegations that the injury could have been prevented if the employees had received better
2

or additional training. Roberts v. City of Shreveport , 397 F.3d 187, 293 (5th Cir. 2005). The
plaintiff must demonstrate, with specificity, how a particular training program is defective. Id.
Plaintiff failed to meet this burden. Therefore, the claims that Defendant Delone failed to train or
supervise his employees should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
ORDER
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections [Dkt. 71] are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and
the conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report and recommendation of the
magistrate judge [Dkt. 69] is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in accordance with the
magistrate judge’s recommendation.
SIGNED this 29th day of August, 2024.

____________________________
Michael J. Truncale
United States District Judge

3