The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Michael R. Barrett
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Black's October 30, 2006 Report and Recommendation (hereinafter "Report") (Doc. 53). Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C), notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). In the Report, the Magistrate recommends granting the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 32) and denying all other pending motions as moot. Plaintiff, pro se, filed Objections to the Magistrate's Report on November 6, 2006 (Doc. 54). The Magistrate clearly set forth the facts as they have been presented in this case, as such, this Court will not restate the facts here.
When objections are received to a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation on a dispositive matter, the assigned district judge "shall make a de novo determination...of any portion of the magistrate judge's disposition to which specific written objection has been made...." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). After review, the district judge "may accept, reject or modify the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id; see also 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). General objections are insufficient to preserve any issues for review; "[a] general objection to the entirety of the magistrate's report has the same effects as would a failure to object." Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991).
Although it is difficult to determine the exact objections being raised by Plaintiff in his response to the Report, since the Plaintiff is pro se this Court will give him deference and has determined that Plaintiff has attached certain documents in an attempt to prove that the "Hamilton County Sheriff Officer's [sic] did show cruel and unusual punishment" (p. 8). To support this argument Plaintiff attaches three "Inmate Request Forms" that Plaintiff asserts demonstrates that he requested medical attention. And presumably, that based upon these request forms the Defendants acted with deliberate intent.
The December 3, 2003 requests states "... there are spyerders [sic] biting us in here." However, this statement was made prior to Plaintiff's bite at issue in this case and does not allege that the spider bites are causing any pain or injury. On the December 12, 2003 Inmate Request Form Plaintiff does state "need to see a doc for swallowen [sic] groin... have spider bite right groin." Plaintiff also requested new eye glasses, underclothes, heat in the cell, and to see a foot doctor and orthopedic doctor. In response to this request, the county official responded by informing Plaintiff that he had previously been referred to a chaplain for his glasses and to social services for his underclothes and "to fill out a sick call slip about your foot." On December 14, 2003 Plaintiff again filled out an Inmate Request Form wherein he complains about the spider bite and that it is now swollen and bloody. Again the county official responded, "Please fill out a sick call slip." Plaintiff has failed to present any evidence that he filled out a sick call slip or that the Defendants ignored the sick call slips. In addition, as the Magistrate Judge correctly pointed out, Plaintiff was seen by the medical staff approximately 32 times while incarcerated and his movement history demonstrates that he was seen daily from November 15, 2003 through January 16, 2004. The evidence established that Plaintiff received adequate medical care while he was incarcerated.
Upon de novo review, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to establish a constitutional violation as he has failed to show any custom or policy of the County Defendants that led to his injury. Monell v. New York Dept. Of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Plaintiff has also failed to establish any deliberate indifference or intentional misconduct by the Defendants as required to support a §1983 claim. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986). As Plaintiff did not object to the finding of qualified immunity as to Sheriff Leis, this Court will not review that issue. Furthermore, since no objections were made as to the dismissal, without prejudice, of the state law claims this Court will not review that issue. Accordingly, the October 30, 2006 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Black (Doc. 53) is hereby ADOPTED. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED (Doc 32). All other pending motions are deemed MOOT. This matter is hereby closed.
Michael R. Barrett, Judge United States District Court
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw ...