Reeves v. Lynch et al
ORDER ADOPTING 52 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; Denying as Moot 40 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Shah, Granting 39 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by R Lynch, Granting 41 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Jagdish A Shah., ORDERING Defendant R Lynch (RN, Bowie County Correctional Center) and Jagdish A Shah be Dismissed With Prejudice and Plaintiffs claims against Dr. Sanjakumar Shah are Dismissed Without Prejudice and are now terminated. FURTHER ORDERING that the Plaintiff Timothy Reeves shall have thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of this Order to file an amended complaint. Signed by Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 8/21/2017. (sm, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
R LYNCH ET. AL.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-00146-RWS
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Timothy Reeves, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under
42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The case was referred to the
United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order
for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges medical neglect with respect to the medical care he received
at the Bowie County Correctional Center. Docket No. 1 at 4. In Plaintiff’s Original Complaint,
he names as Defendants Nurse Regina Lynch, Dr. Jagdish Shah, and two individuals at the
Brickey Unit in Arkansas. Id. at 4–5. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint names only Dr. Shah and
Nurse Lynch. Docket No. 9 at 1–2. Dr. Shah and Nurse Lynch were ordered to answer the
lawsuit. Docket No. 11.
After both Dr. Shah and Nurse Lynch had answered, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint naming Nurse Lynch, Dr. Shah,1 Warden Page, LaSalle Corrections, and Correct Care
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint names a “Dr. S. Shah” as the physician responsible for Plaintiff’s care. This
appears to be an error, as Dr. Jagdish Shah, not Dr. Sanjaykumar Shah, was the doctor at the Bowie County Jail who
treated Plaintiff. See Docket No. 41-1 at 2. The Magistrate Judge has recommended the dismissal of Dr. S. without
Solutions. Docket No. 35. Dr. Jagdish Shah and Nurse Lynch filed separate motions for
summary judgment (Docket Nos. 39 and 41), and Plaintiff filed a response to these motions
(Docket No. 48).
After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that
Dr. Shah and Nurse Lynch’s motions for summary judgment be granted. Docket No. 52. The
Magistrate Judge also recommended the Plaintiff be given thirty (30) days to amend his
complaint and set out a short and plain statement of his claims against Warden Page, LaSalle
Corrections, and Correct Care Solutions. Id. at 14–15.
Plaintiff received a copy of this Report on June 9, 2017 (Docket No. 53), and no
objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation for clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Magistrate
Judge did not clearly err in finding that Plaintiff failed to meet his burden to overcome
Defendants’ qualified immunity defenses and that any delay in Plaintiff’s receipt of medications
did not amount to a constitutional violation. Having reviewed the record and all available
evidence, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s claims against Nurse Lynch,
Dr. J. Shah, and Dr. S. Shah should be dismissed.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 52)
is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED Defendant Nurse
Lynch and Defendant Dr. Jagdish Shah’s Motions for Summary Judgment (Docket Nos. 39 and
41) are GRANTED and that Plaintiff’s claims against these Defendants are DISMISSED WITH
prejudice (Docket No. 52 at 1 n.1). Because the naming of Dr. S. Shah appears to be a typo, the Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s claims against Dr. S. Shah should be dismissed without prejudice to refiling.
Page 2 of 4
Defendant Dr. J. Shah’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 40) is DENIED AS MOOT,
and Plaintiff’s claims against Dr. Sanjaykumar Shah are DISMISSED WITHOUT
Finally, it is ORDERED that the Plaintiff Timothy Reeves shall have thirty (30) days
from the date of receipt of this Order to file an amended complaint setting out a short and plain
statement of his claims against Warden Page, LaSalle Corrections, and Correct Care Solutions.
The amended complaint shall present a short and plain statement setting forth the Plaintiff's
claims on a standard §1983 lawsuit form and written in a legible manner. A short and plain
statement of a claim is one which gives the defendant fair notice of Plaintiff’s claims and the
grounds upon which they rest. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The
complaint must allege sufficient facts that, taken as true, state a claim that is plausible on its face;
the pleaded factual content must allow the Court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Hershey v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., 610
F.3d 239, 245 (5th Cir. 2010). The claim must rest on more than conclusions alone. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
The complaint shall specifically include the following:
a concise statement of each of the claims which Plaintiff wishes to raise, together
with the facts giving rise to each of these claims, including the dates of occurrences
of these events, if known. Plaintiff is instructed that he must set out specific facts,
not merely conclusory allegations;
the names of the individual or individuals that Plaintiff wishes to name as
defendants in this lawsuit;
Page 3 of 4
a statement showing how each named Defendant is involved in the facts forming
the basis of the lawsuit;
a statement explaining the harm which Plaintiff suffered as a result of the facts
forming the basis of this lawsuit; and
a statement of the specific relief sought by Plaintiff in this lawsuit.
The Clerk shall send to the Plaintiff a standard §1983 lawsuit form for his use in filing
the amended complaint. The Plaintiff should ensure that the case number for this matter
(5:15cv146) appears prominently on the front of the complaint form. Failure by the Plaintiff to
file an amended pleading which complies with this order may lead to the dismissal of the
remaining claims in the lawsuit for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court in
accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
SIGNED this 21st day of August, 2017.
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 4 of 4
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?