Moore v. Doe, 2:17-CV-121. (2018)
Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
Number: infdco20180118c58
Visitors: 5
Filed: Jan. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 17, 2018
Summary: ORDER HILDA TAGLE , Senior District Judge . The Court has before it Plaintiff Edward Moore's ("Moore") amended complaint (Dkt. No. 29), the Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") of the Magistrate Judge to whom this case is assigned (Dkt. No. 30), the Office of the Attorney General's ("OAG") amicus curiae objection to the M&R (Dkt. No. 32), Moore's objections to the M&R (Dkt. No. 34), and Moore's response to OAG's objection (Dkt. No. 33). Moore's amended complaint alleges claims of delib
Summary: ORDER HILDA TAGLE , Senior District Judge . The Court has before it Plaintiff Edward Moore's ("Moore") amended complaint (Dkt. No. 29), the Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") of the Magistrate Judge to whom this case is assigned (Dkt. No. 30), the Office of the Attorney General's ("OAG") amicus curiae objection to the M&R (Dkt. No. 32), Moore's objections to the M&R (Dkt. No. 34), and Moore's response to OAG's objection (Dkt. No. 33). Moore's amended complaint alleges claims of delibe..
More
ORDER
HILDA TAGLE, Senior District Judge.
The Court has before it Plaintiff Edward Moore's ("Moore") amended complaint (Dkt. No. 29), the Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") of the Magistrate Judge to whom this case is assigned (Dkt. No. 30), the Office of the Attorney General's ("OAG") amicus curiae objection to the M&R (Dkt. No. 32), Moore's objections to the M&R (Dkt. No. 34), and Moore's response to OAG's objection (Dkt. No. 33).
Moore's amended complaint alleges claims of deliberate indifference, excessive force, and failure to protect against officers and other individuals stemming from his time as a prisoner at the McConnell Unit in Beeville, Texas. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court (1) dismiss Moore's claims for damages against Defendants in their individual capacities as barred by the Eleventh Amendment; and (2) retain all other claims. Dkt. No. 30. The only objection raised by the OAG is that Defendant John Doe Texas Tech Representative is not a proper defendant in this case because Texas Tech does not provide medical care at the McConnell Unit. Dkt. No. 32. Moore states that he "agrees [to] drop Defendant John Doe Texas Tech Representative" and does not raise any independent objections. Dkt. Nos. 33, 34 at 2.
After independently reviewing the record and applicable law, this Court DECLINES TO ADOPT IN PART the M&R as to Moore's claim against John Doe Texas Tech Representative and ADOPTS IN PART the M&R in all other respects. The Court therefore:
• RETAINS Moore's deliberate indifference claims against Registered Nurse G. Samuel and John Doe UTMB Representative in their individual capacities;
• RETAINS Moore's excessive force claim against Sgt. Juan Trevino in his individual capacity;
• RETAINS Moore's failure-to-protect claims against Officer Jane Doe and Captain Perales in their individual capacities;
• DISMISSES Moore's claims for money damages against all Defendants in their official capacities as barred by the Eleventh Amendment;
• DISMISSES Moore's deliberate indifference claim against John Doe Texas Tech Representative and DISMISSES John Doe Texas Tech Representative as a Defendant in this case.
Source: Leagle
