Ingram v. Alvarado et al

Filing 37

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING 26 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by District Judge Ron Clark on 1/11/18. (ljw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
DARRELL INGRAM

§

VS.

§

MELANIE ALVARADO, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:17-CV-32

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Darrell Ingram, a prisoner confined at the Eastham Unit of the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Melanie Alvarado and Stephen
Martin.
The court ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable Keith F. Giblin, United States
Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of
this court. The Magistrate Judge recommends granting defendant Martin’s motion to dismiss the
claims against him for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge, along with the record and the pleadings. Plaintiff filed objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s 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). Plaintiff alleges defendant Martin, a registered nurse,
performed an EKG in accordance with the instructions of defendant Alvarado, a mid-level medical
provider. Plaintiff alleges defendant Martin opined that plaintiff was suffering from a strained

muscle, but plaintiff was subsequently diagnosed with kidney damage, which was likely caused by
a pain medication plaintiff was taking. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts suggesting that defendant
Martin was responsible for prescribing the medication that possibly caused plaintiff’s kidney
damage, or that defendant Martin’s opinion as to the cause of plaintiff’s pain affected plaintiff’s
diagnosis or treatment by medical providers who were qualified to make those determinations.
Plaintiff has not shown that defendant Martin was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
needs. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). As a result, the Magistrate Judge correctly
concluded that plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted as to defendant
Martin.
ORDER
Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections (document no. 29) are OVERRULED. The findings of
fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the report of the Magistrate
Judge (document no. 26) is ADOPTED. Defendant Martin’s motion to dismiss (document no. 16)
is GRANTED. A partial judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation.

So Ordered and Signed
Jan 11, 2018

2