Colbert v. Douglas, 5:17-cv-00465-TES-CHW. (2018)
Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20181114d71
Visitors: 4
Filed: Nov. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 13, 2018
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TILMAN E. SELF, III , District Judge . Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. 22] in which the United States Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 16]. Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation as prescribed by 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). 1 Having considered the substance of the United
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TILMAN E. SELF, III , District Judge . Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. 22] in which the United States Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 16]. Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation as prescribed by 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). 1 Having considered the substance of the United ..
More
ORDER ADOPTING THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TILMAN E. SELF, III, District Judge.
Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. 22] in which the United States Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 16]. Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation as prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).1 Having considered the substance of the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court agrees that Plaintiff (in the context of a pre-trial detainee's deliberate indifference to medical needs claim) cannot satisfy the first prong of the deliberate indifference inquiry requiring proof of "subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm." Dang ex rel. Dang v. Sheriff, Seminole Cty., 871 F.3d 1272, 1280 (11th Cir. 2017). Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 22] of the United States Magistrate Judge and MAKES IT THE ORDER OF THE COURT. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 16].
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The Court notes that upon Defendant's filing of his summary judgment motion the Court issued a Notice to Pro Se Party of Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 20]. The docket also indicates that the Notice was returned to the Court on September 5, 2018. [Doc. 21]. However, the Court advised Plaintiff of his "Duty to Advise of Address Change" in an earlier Report and Recommendation and further warned Plaintiff that a "[f]ailure to promptly advise the Clerk of any change of address may result in the dismissal of a party's pleadings." [Doc. 6 at p. 12]. In addition to not receiving the Notice to Pro Se Party on Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff did not receive the United States Magistrate Judge's second Report and Recommendation [Doc. 22]. Notwithstanding Plaintiff's failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address, the United States Magistrate Judge made a merit-based recommendation as to Defendant's summary judgment motion.
Source: Leagle
