Ramsey v. Marquardt et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING 8 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 4/16/07. (ljw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
MICHAEL RAMSEY

§

VS.

§

MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING
CORPORATION (“MTC”) AND DANIEL
DRISKELL

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:16-CV-120

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND
ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Michael Ramsey, an inmate represented by counsel, Tammy Peden, filed the abovereferenced civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Management and
Training Corporation (“MTC”) and Warden David Driskell.
The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Keith Giblin, United States Magistrate Judge,
at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court. The
Magistrate Judge recommends defendants’ 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss be denied.
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 pleadings. Defendants filed
objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. This requires a
de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and applicable law. See FED. R. CIV.
P. 72(b).
After careful consideration of the objections and responses thereto, the court finds
defendants’ objections lacking in merit. Defendants continue to argue that plaintiff has plead a
negligence or premise liability claim which does not support a Section 1983 claim. Although this
is a correct statement of the law with respect to Section 1983 claims, defendants continue to ignore
the facts as specifically plead by plaintiff in this case. As outlined by the Magistrate Judge, plaintiff
has plead sufficient facts to survive the “facial plausibility” standard. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.
1927 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Plaintiff has plead specifically

a claim for deliberate indifference and has not plead a claim for negligence or premise liability.
Plaintiff has also plead sufficient personal involvement of both defendants and has plead facts
sufficient to suggest the defendants knew of, and disregarded, an “excessive risk” to plaintiff’s health
or safety.
ORDER
Accordingly, petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED.

The findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the report of the Magistrate Judge is
ADOPTED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 16th day of April, 2017.

2