Fountain v. Thaler et al

Filing 236

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Plaintiff's objections are overruled and the Report of the Magistrate Judge 174 is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. All of Plaintiff's allegations except for his claims o f (1) denial of cleaning supplies in May 2014; (2) denial of adequate food; (3) deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in August of 2013; (4) deliberate indifference to mental health needs; (5) denial of reasonably adequate clothing in Nove mber of 2013 and August of 2014; and (6) cruel and unusual punishment through burns in the shower in January and May of 2014 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. All of the Defen dants except for Warden Rupert, Michael Beil, Nurse Practitioner Pierson, Nurse Taliaferro, Naomi Olivares, Lt. White, Robert Scott, and Brandon Shinault are DISMISSED as parties to this lawsuit. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 09/01/15. (mll, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION FREDDIE FOUNTAIN § v. § RICK THALER, ET AL. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13cv958 MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The Plaintiff Freddie Fountain proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights. This Court ordered that the case be 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. The operative pleading is Fountain’s third amended complaint, in which he named 41 defendants and raised numerous global claims for relief. The Attorney General for the State of Texas filed a motion for a Rule 7 reply, and Fountain filed a motion for leave to reply and expound upon his complaint pursuant to Rule 7, as well as affidavits in support of his complaint. After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that all of the Plaintiff’s allegations except for six be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Fountain has filed objections and supplemental objections to this Report. The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations to which the Plaintiff objected. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) (district judge shall “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”) Upon such de novo review, 1 the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct and the Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. It is accordingly ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s objections are overruled and the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 174) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that all of the Plaintiff’s allegations except for his claims of (1) denial of cleaning supplies in May 2014; (2) denial of adequate food; (3) deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in August of 2013; (4) deliberate indifference to mental health needs; (5) denial of reasonably adequate clothing in November of 2013 and August of 2014; and (6) cruel and unusual . punishment through burns in the shower in January and May of 2014 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It is further ORDERED that all of the Defendants except for Warden Rupert, Michael Beil, Nurse Practitioner Pierson, Nurse Taliaferro, Naomi Olivares, Lt. White, Robert Scott, and Brandon Shinault are DISMISSED as parties to this lawsuit. SIGNED this 1st day of September, 2015. ____________________________________ MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER 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?