ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN, District Judge.
THIS MATTER COMES BEFORE THE COURT upon Plaintiff Scooter Robinson's Objections [190, 193] to the Report and Recommendation [187] of Chief Magistrate Judge John M. Roper entered in this cause on April 25, 2013. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Motion [171] to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Reta Lumpkin be granted.
The Court has thoroughly reviewed the findings in the Report and Recommendation [187], in addition to the positions advanced in Defendant Lumpkin's Motion [171], Plaintiff's Objection [190], and Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Objection [193], and concludes that the Magistrate's Report [187] should be adopted as the finding of the Court. The Court further finds that Plaintiff's Objections [190, 193] should be overruled, and that the Motion [171] to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Reta Lumpkin should be granted.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 28, 2013, this Court entered an Order [185] Adopting Report and Recommendation which set forth the relevant facts and procedural history in this case which the Court adopts and incorporates by reference herein. For this reason, the Court will focus only on the facts and procedural history pertinent to resolution of the pending Report and Recommendation.
According to Plaintiff's Complaint [1], he suffered a gunshot wound to his left thigh. Plaintiff claims that after a five day period, his pain medication ran out and he was denied additional pain medication and further appointments with Lumpkin. Reta Lumpkin was named a Defendant in Plaintiff's Complaint, in civil action number 1:11-cv-245 HSO-JMR, which asserted allegations identical to those contained in civil action number 1:10cv556 HSO-JMR. Lumpkin filed a Motion [171] to Dismiss, or in the alternative for Summary Judgment on January 23, 2013. On April 25, 2013, Chief Magistrate Judge John M. Roper issued his Report and Recommendation addressing the foregoing Motion. Report and Recommendation [187]. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendant Lumpkin's Motion [171] to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and Plaintiff's Complaint dismissed. Plaintiff filed his Objection [190] to the Report and Recommendation on June 3, 2013. In addition, on June 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a "Memorandum of Law in Support of Objection" [193].
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), if written objections are timely filed to a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations, the Court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). In so doing, the Court is not required to reiterate the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge, Koetting v. Thompson, 995 F.2d 37, 40 (5th Cir. 1993), nor need it consider objections that are frivolous, conclusive, or general in nature, Battle v. United States Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1997).
B. Analysis
Plaintiff's Denial of Medical Care Claim
With respect to Defendant Lumpkin's Motion, the Magistrate Judge concluded that:
Robinson has presented no facts indicating Lumpkin knew of, and disregarded, an excessive risk to his health or safety, or that she was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, and unnecessarily and wantonly inflicted harm on him. . . . Several incidents of Robinson's refusal to accept prescribed medication were in Robinson's medical records. . . . The fact that Robinson may disagree with the treatment he received does not equate to a violation of his constitutional rights. Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006).
Report and Recommendation [187], at pp. 4-5.
In his Objections, Plaintiff takes issue with the finding that Lumpkin provided adequate medical care. Plaintiff asserts that "Reta Lumpkin has been deliberate [sic] indifferent . . . for refusing to provide me with a proper management of recovery and physical therapy program," and "Reta Lumpkin showed deliberate indifference to me by not providing me with a proper pain management recovery program . . . which has caused me pain and distress because I was at times without pain medication." Mem. of Law in Supp. of Objection [193] at p. 2. Plaintiff asserts that Lumpkin "deliberately disregarded his medical need for pain medication and that he had a right to not be in pain." Id.
"Merely negligent diagnosis or treatment of a medical condition does not state a claim under the Eighth Amendment. . . . Rather, there must be `deliberate indifference, which results in substantial harm.' Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir.1993)." Hernandez v. Velasquez, 522 F.3d 556, 561 (5th Cir. 2008). The Court has conducted an independent, de novo examination of the record in this case in connection with the Report and Recommendation [187]. The evidence of record demonstrates that Plaintiff was examined, assessed, and treated by Lumpkin. The record lacks sufficient evidence indicating that Lumpkin was deliberately indifferent in attending to Plaintiff's medical needs and or rendering medical care. The Court finds that Plaintiff's Objections [190, 193] challenging the findings are not well taken or supported by the record, and should be overruled. The Report and Recommendation [187] correctly finds the applicable facts and applies the governing legal standards. The Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted as the opinion of the Court as to Plaintiff's claim against Lumpkin. Defendant's Motion [171] to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment should be granted.
III. CONCLUSION
After careful consideration of the record, relevant law, and for the reasons stated herein, the Court is of the opinion that Plaintiff's Objections [190, 193] should be overruled, and the Report and Recommendation [187] of Chief Magistrate Judge John M. Roper should be adopted as the finding of this Court, along with the additional findings made herein. Defendant's Motion [171] to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment should be granted.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, Plaintiff's Objections [190, 193] are OVERRULED.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, the Report and Recommendation [187] of Chief Magistrate Judge John M. Roper entered on April 25, 2013, is adopted in its entirety as the finding of this Court.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, the Motion [171] to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment filed by Reta Lumpkin is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's claims against Reta Lumpkin are dismissed with prejudice.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.
