Opinion
Civil Action No.: EP-01-CA-00061-EP
February 27, 2002
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CAUSE
On this date, the Court considered the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation in the above-styled and numbered cause, filed January 8, 2002, and Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate's recommendation. After careful consideration, the Court will accept the recommendation and dismiss this cause.
Where no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made"). In such cases, thy Court need only review the Report and Recommendation to ensure that it is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989). On the other band, any Report or Recommendation that is objected to requires a de novo review. Such a review means that the Court will examine the record and make an independent assessment of the law. The Court need not, however, conduct a de novo review when the objections are frivolous, conclusive, or general in nature, Battle v. United States Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). In this case, Plaintiff objected to the Magistrate's recommendation, so the Court conducted a de nova review.
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, clarifying that he is not asserting claims against any of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice's officers and doctors, only those Defendants named in the suit repeating his initial allegations; and adding that Defendants have violated certain provisions found in local state law codes. However, after reviewing the record, the Court finds that the Magistrate's conclusion that Plaintiff's Cause should be dismissed for failure to state a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim is correct.
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must allege that Defendants have deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). To this end, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights because he was transported 800 miles while he was in poor health and his medical records did not accompany him for use by the destination facility. Plaintiff argues that Defendants failed to notify the proper individuals of his poor health, failed to postpone and prevent his transfer, failed to institute and implement a policy that postponed the transfer of ill inmates, and failed to timely provide his medical records to the destination facility.
Plaintiff must show that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs to support his Eighth Amendment violalion claim.Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976) (citing Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.)) ("We therefore conclude that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the `unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,' . . . proscribed by the Eighth Amendment."). The United States Supreme Court clarified what constitutes deliberate indifference in the context of inmate medical care:
[I]n the medical context, an inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care cannot be said to constitute "an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain" or to be "repugnant to the conscience of mankind." Thus, a complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.Id. at 105-06 (emphasis added).
Here, Plaintiff essentially argue. that his transfer should have been postponed until he was in bettor health and his medical records should have accompanied him on his transfer. Although Plaintiff's allegations may support a medical malpractice claim, they fall short of evincing deliberate indifference. Taking Plaintiff's allegations us true, i.e., that Defendants failed to postpone his transfer and send his medical records along with him, Plaintiff has not shown that this failure constitutes an intentional and deliberately indifferent act on the part of Defendants toward Plaintiff's medical needs. Cf. Johnson v. Treen, 759 F.2d 1236, 1238 (5th Cir. 1988) (holding that the plaintiff was treated repeatedly for his ailments and made no showing of deliberate indifference, such as prison personnel "[refusing] to treat him, [ignoring] his complaints, intentionally [treating] him incorrectly, or [engaging] in any similar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard for any serious medical need.").
Therefore, consistent with the rationale set forth in the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical needs. As such, Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court ACCEPTS the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, DISMISSES this cause for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and DENIES as moot all pending motions (to include docket entry #7).