Williams v. Catoe et al

Filing 252

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Report and Recommendation 232 is ADOPTED. Defendants Assava, Dr. Shrode, and White's Motion for Summary Judgment 193 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's claims against Defend ants Assava and Dr. Shrode are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant White are (in part) DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 09/01/20. (mll, )

Case 6:17-cv-00627-JDK-KNM Document 252 Filed 09/01/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 3349

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION

ELLIOTT WILLIAMS, #0481914

§

VS.

§

JEFFREY CATOE, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:17cv627

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This action case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On July 22, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (Docket No. 232), recommending that Defendants Assava, Dr. Shrode, and
White’s motion for summary judgment limited to the exhaustion of administrative remedies
(Docket No. 193) be granted in part and denied in part. The Report further recommended that
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Assava and Dr. Shrode be dismissed without prejudice for
Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. As to Defendant White, the Report
recommended that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant White for allegedly delaying Plaintiff’s
physical therapy appointments for December 22, 2016, and January 25, 2017, should be allowed
to proceed. It was finally recommended that all other claims against Defendant White should
be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative
remedies. Plaintiff timely filed objections. Docket No. 244.
The Court reviews objected-to portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation de novo. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the
court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings and recommendations to which objection is made.”). The Court conducting a de novo

Case 6:17-cv-00627-JDK-KNM Document 252 Filed 09/01/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 3350

review examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass
v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other
grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen
days).
Having reviewed Plaintiff’s objections de novo, the Court concludes that the objections are
without merit and that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct. It is
accordingly
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 232) is ADOPTED. It is
further
ORDERED that Defendants Assava, Dr. Shrode, and White’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Docket No. 193) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Assava and Dr. Shrode are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative
remedies. It is finally
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant White are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, except for his claims against
Defendant White for allegedly delaying Plaintiff’s physical therapy appointments for December
22, 2016 and January 25, 2017. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant White for allegedly delaying
Plaintiff’s physical therapy appointments for December 22, 2016 and January 25, 2017 shall be
allowed to proceed.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 1st

day of September, 2020.

___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE