Roxanne Adams, Administrator of the Estate of Jamycheal M. Mitchell v. Naphcare, Inc. et al

Filing 150

MEMORANDUM ORDER: denying 10 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; adopting Report and Recommendations re 147 Report and Recommendations. The court, having examined the Objection to the R&R filed by Hart, and having made de novo fin dings with respect thereto, does hereby OVERRULE the Objection, ADOPT AND APPROVE IN FULL the findings and recommendations set forth in the R&R of the United States Magistrate Judge filed on December 19, 2016, ECF No. 147, and DENY the Plaintiff's Motion filed on June 8, 2016. ECF No. 10. Copy of this Memorandum Order provided to counsel for all parties. Signed by Chief District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith on 1/19/2017. (bgra)

UNITED

STATES

DISTRICT

COURT

FILED

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Norfolk Division

JAN 1 9 201/
ROXANNE ADAMS,

ADMINISTRATOR OF

THE ESTATE OP JAMYCHEAL M.

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

MITCHELL,

NORFOl K VA

Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO.

V.

NAPHCARE,

INC.,

2:16cv229

et al..

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER

This matter comes

("Motion")
Hart

and

("Hart")

filed a

before

Memorandum
on

June

8,

the

in

Support

2016.

on

the Motion

filed

ECF Nos.

by

10,

Reply on June 28,

a Request for Hearing on June 28,

On July 5,

2016,

Magistrate

2016.

The

2016,

ECF No.

28,

Gail

Plaintiff

ECF No.

22,

as well as

ECF No. 29.

this court referred the Motion to United

Judge

provisions of 28 U.S.C.
to

2016,

to Dismiss

Defendant

11.

Memorandum in Opposition on June 22,

and Hart filed a

States

court

Lawrence

R.

Leonard,

§ 636(b)(1)(B)

Procedure

72(b),

conduct

hearings,

if

necessary,

district

judge

proposed

and

findings

including

submit
of

to

the

and Federal Rule of Civil

hearings,
to

pursuant

fact,

to
if

the

evidentiary
undersigned

applicable,

and

recommendations for the disposition of the Motion. ECF No. 38.
Having
October 19,

conducted
2016,

see

a

hearing

regarding

ECF

No. 139,

the

the

Magistrate

Motion
Judge

on

filed

the Report and Recommendation {"R&R")

No.

147.

The Magistrate Judge

R&R at 1. By copy of the R&R,
right

to

file

written

on December 19,

recommended denying

No.

148,

ECF No.

2016,

objections

Hart

to

the

the Motion.

findings

See id.

filed an Objection to

and on January 6,

ECF

the parties were advised of their

recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge.
On December 30,

2016.

2017,

and

at 17-18.

the R&R,

the Plaintiff filed a

ECF

Reply.

149.
I.

Pursuant

Procedure,

entirety,

to

Rule

the

LEGAL

72(b)

court,

STANDARD

of

having

shall make a ^

the

Federal

reviewed

the

Rules

of

record

Civil

in

its

novo determination of those portions

of the R&R to which a party has specifically objected.

Fed. R.

Civ. P. 72(b). The court may accept, reject, or modify,

in whole

or

in

part,

recommit

the

the

recommendation

matter

to

him

of

the

with

magistrate

judge,

instructions.

28

or

U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).
II.

DISCUSSION

This action was brought by the Plaintiff in her capacity as
the

administrator

("Mitchell"),

who

of

died

Roads Regional Jail
the

Complaint

Eastern

State

the

as

a

("HRRJ").

alleges

that

Hospital,

estate

of

pretrial

Compl.

Hart,
failed

as

Jamycheal

detainee

lit 1,

20.

in

process

the

Hampton

Relevant here,

an admissions
to

Mitchell

a

employee

of

competency

restraining order
Mitchell's

Hospital

("CRO")

immediate

issued by a state court that required

transfer

for mental

health

from

the

treatment.

HRRJ

See

to

id.

Eastern

HH

2,

State

84.

The

Complaint further alleges that, as a result of Hart's failure to
process the CRO,

Mitchell died.

Id.

In the Motion to Dismiss,
the

Plaintiff

maintaining
at 4-5.

has

this

not

208, 220, 255,

Hart alleges,

sufficiently

action

In the R&R,

200,

against

pled

Hart.

inter alia,

proximate

Mot.

at

1;

the Magistrate Judge disagrees,

that

cause
Mem.

for

Supp.

concluding

the following:
Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that Hart's conduct in
preventing a mentally i l l pretrial detainee from being
transferred out of a
jail, where,
because of his
medical and mental disabilities, he did not receive
necessary and proper treatment, to a mental hospital
where

he

would

have

received

such

treatment,

led

to

Mitchell's death.

R&R at

12-13.

In

the

Objection to

finding of proximate cause.
that,

Obj.

the

R&R,

for

casualties

improbable,'"
foreseeing

and

that

which,

that

which

not

expected

"intentional

acts" of other defendants,

Inc.

and/or

v.

'wholly

charged

with

happen.'"

Messer,

willful

and

263

Id.

(2002)). Hart then states that "Hart could not possibly
the

Va. ,

to

were

435,

anticipated"

Cent.

be

"a defendant is not

possible,
is

Hart notes

Interim

have

of

not

party

this

{quoting

442

Pers.

though

"'[a]

could

contests

at 1. Specifically,

under the applicable law of Virginia,

liable

Hart

Va.

wanton

"or Mitchell's subsequent death,"

id.

at 1,
the

and that "[tjhere is simply no logical connection between
administrative

error

allegedly

committed

Mitchell's death several months later."

Having reviewed the matter ^
the Magistrate Judge's
Hart's assertion,
when

kept

in a

transfer

to

treatment,

might

dismissal

jail

despite

of

the

as

the

a

agrees

S.E.2d

with

defendants'

the

caused

515,

this

defendant's

526

in

S.E.2d

proximate

cause

795,

plausibly

hereby OVERRULED.

of

the

his

immediate

mental

not

health

receiving

conduct

death

detainee,

of

such

other actors

does

not

warrant
As

the

than one proximate

(citing Harman v. Honeywell Int'l,

(Va.

2014)).

Judge's

negligence'"

Payne,

has

for

Furthermore,

conclusion

Mitchell

as

to

acts.

Id.

799

warrant

(Va.

alleged

Mitchell's

at

"[o]ther
food,

dismissal

and

due

to

Jenkins

v.

Accordingly,

Hart's
and

court

the operation of

{quoting

1996)).

that

death,

15

the

that

medication,

'so entirely supersede

superseding

Plaintiff

Contrary to

juncture against Hart.

denying

intervening,
465

of

"there can be more

Magistrate

actions

order

Mitchell's

action at

water at HRRJ may not
the

the court agrees with

in-patient

that

cause of an injury." R&R at 7
758

court

result

fact

Magistrate Judge noted,

Inc.,

novo,

necessary,

die

also

a

and

at 2.

finding on proximate cause.

receive

Moreover,

have

Hart,

it is not wholly improbable that a

might

treatment.

Id.

by

conduct

Hart's

was

Objection

the

a
is

III.

The court,

by Hart,
does
the

having examined the Objection to the R&R filed

and having made ^

hereby OVERRULE the
findings

CONCLUSION

and

novo findings with respect thereto,
Objection,

recommendations

ADOPT AND APPROVE IN FULL

set

forth

in

the

United States Magistrate Judge filed on December 19,
No.

147,

ECF No.

The

and DENY

the

2016,

ECF

the Plaintiff's Motion filed on June 8,

2016.

10.

Clerk

is

DIRECTED

to

send

a

copy

of

this

Order to counsel for all parties.
IT IS

SO ORDERED.

/s/

Rebecca Beach Smith

-m-

Chief Judge

REBECCA BEACH SMITH
CHIEF JUDGE

January

R&R of

,

2017

Memorandum