Opinion
CIVIL NO. 2:18-CV-328
04-07-2020
FRED HOFFMAN, III, Plaintiff, v. JEFFERY RICHARDSON, et al, Defendants.
ORDER
The Court is in receipt of the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R"), Dkt. No. 76. The Court is also in receipt of Defendant Jeffery Richardson's ("Richardson") Objections to the M&R, Dkt. No. 81; and Plaintiff Fred Hoffman III's ("Hoffman") Objections to the M&R, Dkt. Nos. 84, 87.
I. M&R
The Magistrate Judge recommends granting in part and denying in part Richardson's Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 48. Dkt. No. 76. The Magistrate Judge recommends that summary judgment should be denied with regard to personal involvement in constitutional deprivations, qualified immunity, Eleventh Amendment immunity and § 1997e(e). Dkt. No. 76 at 31. The Magistrate Judge additionally recommends that summary judgment should be denied as to Hoffman's deliberate indifference claim against Richardson in his official capacity for injunctive relief in connection with his seizure disorder. Id. The Magistrate Judge recommends granting summary judgment regarding Hoffman's deliberate indifference claim regarding sleep deprivation. Id. Finally, the Magistrate Judge recommends denying Hoffman's motion for a TRO or preliminary injunctive relief. Id. at 32.
Richardson objects to the deliberate indifference and Eleventh Amendment recommendation. Dkt. No. 81 at 14. Richardson also objects that this case is not ripe for review. Dkt. No. 81 at 3. The ripeness argument was not included in the summary judgment motion and is raised for the first time in his objections. Dkt. No. 48, 76.
Hoffman objects to the M&R's recommendations concerning sleep deprivation and the TRO. Dkt. Nos. 84, 87. The Court reviews objected-to portions of a Magistrate Judge's proposed findings and recommendations de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). But if the objections are frivolous, conclusive or general in nature the court need not conduct a de novo review. Battle v. United States Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419 (5th Cir. 1987).
a. Ripeness
Issues raised for the first time in objections to the report of a Magistrate Judge are not properly before the District Judge. Finley v. Johnson, 243 F.3d 215, 219 (5th Cir. 2001). Richardson's ripeness argument was made for the first time in his objections so is not properly before this Court. See id.; Dkt. Nos. 48. Even if the issue was properly raised, the record demonstrates facts that make this case ripe for judicial review. Dkt. No. 76 at 21. While Richardson points to an absence of medical records concerning strobe-induced seizures, Hoffman points out in his response that clinic visits are not the only way to document a seizure, and not every seizure requires clinical intervention, but it still can be a harm. Dkt. No. 87 at 10. Hoffman has raised factual issues about whether he was subjected to strobe flashlights and suffered seizures because of them. Id.; Dkt. No. 76 at 21. That is not an abstract disagreement about administrative policies or practices as the ripeness doctrine hopes to avoid. See Nat'l Park Hosp. Ass'n v. Dep't of Interior, 538 U.S. 803, 807 (2003).
All other objections have been adequately addressed in the M&R or are either general or frivolous. See Dkt. No. 76; Battle, 834 F.2d 419.
After independently reviewing the record, the filings and the applicable law the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety, Dkt. No 76. The Court OVERRULES Richardson's and Hoffman's objections, Dkt. Nos. 81, 84, 87. The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Richardson's Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 48. The Court hereby:
• DENIES Summary Judgment as to personal involvement, qualified immunity, Eleventh Amendment immunity and § 1997e(e).
• DENIES Summary Judgment as to a deliberate indifference claim against Richardson in his official capacity for injunctive relief in connection with Hoffman's seizure disorder.
• GRANTS Summary Judgment as to the deliberate indifference claim against Richardson for sleep deprivation.
• DENIES Hoffman's motion for a TRO or preliminary injunctive relief, Dkt. No. 51.
SIGNED this 7th day of April, 2020.
/s/_________
Hilda Tagle
Senior United States District Judge