JONES v. FOGAM, CV413-131. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20150416b11
Visitors: 23
Filed: Apr. 15, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 15, 2015
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION G.R. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . In a prior ruling the Court preliminarily reviewed plaintiff Lester Bernard Jones' amended 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint against his prison doctor, Eric Fogam, M.D. Doc. 10; reported at 2013 WL 4590406. Jones alleged that he has a serious medical need — he needs a prosthetic leg — but Fogam simply did not want to spend taxpayer dollars to address it. The Court allowed that claim to proceed. Doc. 10 at 7. Jones later claimed that Foga
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION G.R. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . In a prior ruling the Court preliminarily reviewed plaintiff Lester Bernard Jones' amended 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint against his prison doctor, Eric Fogam, M.D. Doc. 10; reported at 2013 WL 4590406. Jones alleged that he has a serious medical need — he needs a prosthetic leg — but Fogam simply did not want to spend taxpayer dollars to address it. The Court allowed that claim to proceed. Doc. 10 at 7. Jones later claimed that Fogam..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
G.R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.
In a prior ruling the Court preliminarily reviewed plaintiff Lester Bernard Jones' amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against his prison doctor, Eric Fogam, M.D. Doc. 10; reported at 2013 WL 4590406. Jones alleged that he has a serious medical need — he needs a prosthetic leg — but Fogam simply did not want to spend taxpayer dollars to address it. The Court allowed that claim to proceed. Doc. 10 at 7. Jones later claimed that Fogam also denied him the leg because of his race. The Court granted Fogam's motion to dismiss both the race-based claim and plaintiff's individual capacity claim. Doc. 28, reported at 2014 WL 545404, adopted, doc. 38.
But it also ruled that Jones retained an official capacity, injunctive relief claim for a prosthetic leg at the State's expense. Hence, Fogam has remained as a nominal defendant. Doc. 39 at 2-3, reported at 2014 WL 5017914 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 7, 2014). Of course, those rulings were based upon Jones' allegations. Now, after discovery, Fogam moves for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, doc. 41, and it is unopposed by operation of Local Rule 7.5 (Jones has failed to respond).1 In that the motion is well supported, it should be granted and Jones' case should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Doc. 41.
SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED.
FootNotes
1. The Court expressly warned Jones that he could not ignore a legally supported summary judgment motion. Doc. 39 at 6-8; see also doc. 42 (Clerk's Notice: "If you do not timely respond to this motion for summary judgment, the consequence maybe that the Court will deem the motion unopposed, and the Court may enter judgment against you.").
Source: Leagle
