Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hoepf v. Parks

December 8, 2006

ANTHONY HOEPF, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MONA PARKS, ET AL. DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Michael R. Barrett

ORDER

This matter came before the Court upon the filing of the following motions by Plaintiff on November 28, 2006:

1. Motion to Supplement Civil Cover Sheet (Doc. 59);

2. Motion to Supplement Complaint (Doc. 60);

3. Motion of Sworn Supplemental Statements and Acknowledgment of Injuries, Pain and Suffering by Plaintiff (Doc. 61);

4. Plaintiff's Evidence in Documentation to Attached Support Explanation of Extension of Time (Doc. 62); and

5. Motion to Supplement Plaintiff's Evidence (Doc. 63).

Prior to the filing of the above motions by Plaintiff, this Court had provided Plaintiff with time to file supplemental evidence in support of his claim that a medical cell had been ordered on his behalf (See Doc. 55). Upon Plaintiff's motion for extension of time the Court extended Plaintiff's deadline to file this supplemental evidence to December 1, 2006 provided that he also include evidence of the illness that he suffered that prohibited him from participating in the October 10, 2006 conference call with this Court (See Doc. 58). Doc. 62 is Plaintiff's evidence that he was suffering from an illness that prohibited him from participating in the October 10, 2006 conference call with this Court. Specifically, Plaintiff has provided a copy of a "Response to Kite" which states that "Nurse Joiner did write you a lay-in for 6 days on 10/9/06. This lay-in prevents you from going to recreation and work." The Court finds this documentation to be sufficient and will now consider the other pleadings pending before this Court, including the above listed motions and the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hogan (Doc. 40).

First the Court will address Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Civil Cover Sheet (Doc. 59) and Motion to Supplement Complaint (Doc. 60). Presumably, Plaintiff wants to amend his complaint to add Mr. D. Shanks as a party defendant. Mr. Shanks is a dietician at SOCF. Plaintiff alleges that he has been denied a medically therapeutic diet. Attached to Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 60) as Exhibit #1A is a document entitled "Decision of the Chief Inspector on a Grievance Appeal" dated January 24, 2006. Since this decision is dated almost eleven full months prior to Plaintiff's request to amend his complaint, the discovery deadline expired on March 6, 2006, and the dispositive motions deadline expired on April 6, 2006, the Court finds such request to amend as untimely. Thus, Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Civil Cover Sheet (Doc. 59) and Motion to Supplement Complaint (Doc. 60) are hereby DENIED.

Plaintiff also filed a Motion of Sworn Supplemental Statements and Acknowledgment of Injuries, Pain and Suffering by Plaintiff (Doc. 61). It is unclear to this Court what Plaintiff is requesting by way of this motion. Plaintiff alleges in this motion how he has been mistreated at SOCF. Specifically, he attaches several grievances that indicate the following: that porters were not delivering his meals, that on October 28, 2004 Plaintiff was assaulted by another inmate and that during this assault his glasses were broken (Exhibit #1), that Plaintiff filed a grievance relative to a Use of Force complaint that allegedly occurred on March 17, 2004 (Exhibit #2); that Plaintiff filed a grievance relative to a Use of Force complaint that allegedly occurred on January 10, 2005 (Exhibit #3), that on several occasions another inmate spit on Plaintiff (Exhibit #4, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 12). However, several exhibits were not legible. Those are the second page of Exhibit #5 and Exhibits # 8, 9, 10 and 11. None of these exhibits nor Plaintiff's motion provided any additional support for Plaintiff's allegation that he is entitled to a medical cell. Thus, Plaintiff's Motion of Sworn Supplemental Statements and Acknowledgment of Injuries, Pain and Suffering by Plaintiff (Doc. 61) is hereby STRICKEN from the record.

In response to the opportunity provided to Plaintiff by this Court to further supplement the record with evidence to support his claim for a medical cell, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Supplement Plaintiff's Evidence (Doc. 63). Plaintiff alleges that he is disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act and he attaches Consultation Sheets from eye exams dating back to 1992 through 2000 (Exhibit A-N) as well as a history of prescription medication for various months from 1995 through 2001 (Exhibit S-Z, Z3-Z7). Plaintiff also attaches a prescription for Terazosin and Olopatadine Opth dated 10/31/2006 (Exhibit Q & R) as well as for a catheter dated 11/17/06 (Exhibit Z2). However, none of this alleged evidence supports Plaintiff's claim that he is entitled to a medical cell. As such, Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Plaintiff's Evidence (Doc. 63) is hereby DENIED.

Finally, Magistrate Judge Hogan filed a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 40) on September 7, 2006. Magistrate Judge Hogan recommended that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and that this matter be dismissed from the docket. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on October 2, 2006 (Doc. 52). By Order dated October 5, 2006 (Doc. 54), this Court, upon review of said objections, found that Plaintiff had failed to specify the portion or portions of the Report and Recommendation objected to as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Thus, based upon the sound reasoning of the Report and Recommendation, this Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hogan (Doc. 40).

Thus, Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Civil Cover Sheet (Doc. 59) and Motion to Supplement Complaint (Doc. 60) are hereby DENIED; Plaintiff's Motion of Sworn Supplemental Statements and Acknowledgment of Injuries, Pain and Suffering by Plaintiff (Doc. 61) is hereby STRICKEN from the record; Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Plaintiff's Evidence (Doc. 63) is hereby DENIED; Magistrate Judge Hogan's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 40) is hereby ADOPTED; Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 30) is hereby ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.