Havlik v. United States, 2:18-CV-00692. SECTION P. (2019)
Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana
Number: infdco20190923501
Visitors: 31
Filed: Sep. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 17, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER JAMES D. CAIN, JR. , District Judge . Before the court is an "Objection and Appeal of Electronic Order [114], Denying [86] Motion to Find Defendants in Contempt of Court Under Rule 15(e)." Doc. 119. The objection and appeal were filed by pro se plaintiff Neal E. Havlik. The government, defendant in this matter, has not responded and its time for doing so has passed. Havlik filed this suit pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act in 2018, complaining of the medical and dent
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER JAMES D. CAIN, JR. , District Judge . Before the court is an "Objection and Appeal of Electronic Order [114], Denying [86] Motion to Find Defendants in Contempt of Court Under Rule 15(e)." Doc. 119. The objection and appeal were filed by pro se plaintiff Neal E. Havlik. The government, defendant in this matter, has not responded and its time for doing so has passed. Havlik filed this suit pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act in 2018, complaining of the medical and denta..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
JAMES D. CAIN, JR., District Judge.
Before the court is an "Objection and Appeal of Electronic Order [114], Denying [86] Motion to Find Defendants in Contempt of Court Under Rule 15(e)." Doc. 119. The objection and appeal were filed by pro se plaintiff Neal E. Havlik. The government, defendant in this matter, has not responded and its time for doing so has passed.
Havlik filed this suit pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act in 2018, complaining of the medical and dental care he received at the Federal Correctional Institution at Oakdale, Louisiana ("FCIO"). Since that time he has filed numerous dispositive and non-dispositive motions. In June 2019, he moved to find the government in contempt of court for withholding medical records evidence. Doc. 86. He also raised various allegations relating to his ongoing medical care, including denial of pain relief and efforts to deceive the court by withholding care and minimizing his condition. Id. The magistrate judge denied the motion by electronic order, noting that Havlik had also filed a Motion to Compel relating to his medical records and that any withholding of evidence would be considered under that motion. Doc. 114. Havlik now appeals that order, continuing to complain of withheld evidence and other deceit relating to his care. Doc. 119.
The district court has authority to review a magistrate judge's decision on a non-dispositive pre-trial motion and to reverse that decision if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Castillo v. Frank, 70 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 1995). The motion to compel referenced in the order is still pending before Magistrate Judge Kay. See doc. 92. Havlik has also filed motions for preliminary injunctions relating to his medical care, which are not before the court under the present appeal, and has yet to show a right to court intervention in his ongoing treatment. Accordingly, he fails to show a basis for reversal of the magistrate judge's order and the appeal [doc. 119] must be DENIED.
THUS DONE.
Source: Leagle
