Breach v. Prison Health Services

Full title: MARCELLUS BREACH, #203767, Plaintiff, v. PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, et al.…

Court: United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division

Date published: May 8, 2009

CASE NO. 2:06-cv-1133-MEF (M.D. Ala. May. 8, 2009)

Opinion

CASE NO. 2:06-cv-1133-MEF.

May 8, 2009

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MARK FULLER, District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

The issue in this case is whether Alabama Department of Corrections ("ADOC") defendants were deliberately indifferent to providing Plaintiff medical care for a hernia. Before the Court are several pending objections and a motion, including: (1) Plaintiff's Written Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order (Doc. #479), filed on February 21, 2008; (2) Plaintiff's Written Objections to Discovery Requests (Doc. #532), filed on March 13, 2008; (3) Plaintiff's Written Objections to Discovery Request (Doc. #551), filed on March 24, 2008; (4) Plaintiff's Written Objections to Discovery Requests (Doc. #552), filed on March 24, 2008; (5) Plaintiff's Written Objections to Court Order [sic] 601 602 (Doc. #620), filed on May 5, 2008; and (6) Plaintiff's Second — Notice of Objection to Admissibility of Evidence (Doc. #621), filed on May 5, 2008. The Court will discuss each of Plaintiff's objections and his motion in turn.

II. STANDARD

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), this Court reviews the objection, the Magistrate Judge's Order, and all submissions related to that Order to determine whether the Magistrate Judge's Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a).

III. DISCUSSION

1. Plaintiff's Written Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order (Doc. #479)

The Magistrate Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. #458) in an Order (Doc. #460) because it found that the information sought by Plaintiff was irrelevant to the issue before the Court. In Plaintiff's Written Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order (Doc. #479) ("Objection #479"), filed on February 21, 2008, Plaintiff objected to Magistrate Judge Moorer's Order (Doc. #460) on grounds that the information Plaintiff sought was relevant to the case.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) states that discovery is limited to materials which are relevant to the claim before the court. The issue before the Court is whether ADOC defendants' refusal to provide surgery for Plaintiff's hernia constituted deliberate indifference. In his Motion to Compel, Plaintiff sought Louisiana medical records to prove supervisory liability. See Doc. #459, pg. 2. Plaintiff, however, failed to show how Louisiana medical records are relevant to the claim pending before this Court. Therefore, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Court's Order and Objection (Doc. #479) is due to be OVERRULED. 2. Plaintiff's Written Objections to Discovery Requests (Doc. #532)

In Plaintiff's Written Objections to Discovery Requests (Doc. #532) ("Objection #532"), filed on March 13, 2008, Plaintiff objected to Magistrate Judge Moorer's Order (Doc #510) denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. #462). In his Motion to Compel, Plaintiff sought to discover Defendant Dr. George Lyrene's "methodology" as a physician. As discussed above, Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) states that discovery is limited to materials which are relevant to the claim before the court. Dr. Lyrene is not Plaintiff's treating physician, has not been involved in the decision whether Plaintiff needs surgery, and has never examined the Plaintiff. Therefore, the information sought by Plaintiff is irrelevant. The Objection (Doc. #532) is due to be OVERRULED.

3. Plaintiff's Written Objections to Discovery Request (Doc. #551)

In Plaintiff's Written Objections to Discovery Request (Doc. #551) ("Objection #551"), filed on March 24, 2008, Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Moorer's Order (Doc. #534) denying his Motion for Sanctions (Doc. #522). In Objection #551, Plaintiff argues that Defendants' continue to "stonewall discovery." See Doc. #551, pg. 3. In Defendants' response (Doc. #529), Bradford Adams counters that he has answered all of Plaintiff's relevant discovery requests and produced all records in his possession pertaining to Plaintiff's treatment. Upon consideration of Plaintiff's objection, Defendants' response, and Magistrate Judge Moorer's order, Objection #551 is due to be OVERRULED. 4. Plaintiff's Written Objections to Discovery Requests (Doc. #552)

In Plaintiff's Written Objections to Discovery Requests (Doc. #552) ("Objection #552"), filed on March 24, 2008, Plaintiff objects to three Magistrate Judge orders, Docs. #511, 535, and 536. The Court will take up each of Magistrate Judge Moorer's orders and Plaintiff's objections in turn.

A. Magistrate Judge Moorer's Order (Doc. #511)

In Magistrate Judge Moorer's Order (Doc. #511) entered on March 5, 2008, Judge Moorer denied Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. #493) filed on February 27, 2008 because Plaintiff did not seek permission from the Court to file the discovery requests at issue. Previously, the Magistrate Judge had ordered that any discovery request filed after November 20, 2007 would be untimely. (Doc. #178). Upon consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, the Magistrate Judge's Order setting a discovery deadline, and Plaintiff's objection this Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. #493) was properly denied.

B. Magistrate Judge Moorer's Order (Doc. #535)

Magistrate Judge Moorer denied Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #530) in Order entered on March 14, 2008. (Doc. #535). In Objection #552, Plaintiff argued that this Court should vacate three previous Magistrate Court orders (Docs. #510-513) denying Plaintiff's motions to compel. Magistrate Judge Moorer denied Plaintiff's motions in light of the November discovery deadline and "the voluminous responses to discovery filed by the defendants, including the documents and information relevant to the issue pending before this Court." (Doc. #535). This Court agrees that Plaintiff's motions to compel (Doc. #510-513) were properly denied.

C. Magistrate Judge Moorer's Order (Doc. #536)

In his Order entered on March 14, 2008 (Doc #. 536), Magistrate Judge Moorer denied Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections (Doc. #530) because Plaintiff failed to present any basis for such an extension. In Objection #552, Plaintiff still did not present any basis for an extension of time. Therefore, this Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time was properly denied.

D. Conclusion

In Objection #552, Plaintiff objected to three Magistrate Judge orders, Doc. #511, 535, and 536. Upon consideration of Plaintiff's objections, Defendants' responses, and the Magistrate Court's orders, this Court agrees that Plaintiff's motions were properly denied and Motion #552 is due to be OVERRULED.

5. Plaintiff's Written Objections to Court Order [sic] 601 602 (Doc. #620)

In Plaintiff's Written Objections to Court Order [sic] 601 602 (Doc. #620) ("Objection #620"), filed on May 5, 2008, Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Moorer's Orders Doc. #601 and #602.

A. Magistrate Judge Moorer's Order (Doc. #601)

In the Magistrate Court's Order entered on April 29, 2008, (Doc. #601), the Magistrate Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Doc. #599) because Defendants had already submitted the requested documents in response to a previous discovery request. In his Motion to Strike, Plaintiff argued that certain evidence submitted by defendant Dr. William Hobbs was inadmissible hearsay and not authenticated. Defendants submitted the evidence at the Court's request for discovery purposes and not for summary judgment purposes. (Doc. # 565.) Evidence sought in discovery need not be admissible. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) ("[T]he court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action . . . [r]elevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.") Therefore, the inadmissibility of discovery materials is not a valid ground for a court to strike materials from the record. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Doc. #599) was properly denied.

B. Magistrate Judge Moorer's Order (Doc. #602)

In its Order filed on April 29, 2008 (Doc. #602), the Magistrate Judge denied thirteen of Plaintiff's motions (Docs. # 231, 395, 463, 464, 476, 480, 481, 538, 540, 541, 559, 560 561). In Objection #620, Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Moorer's Order (Doc. #602) on the grounds that defendant Dr. William Hobbs's medical license expired on December 31, 2006. Plaintiff argues he is prejudiced by the evidence that Dr. William Hobbs submitted because it is inadmissible evidence. Doc. #620, pg. 2, 4. In addition, Plaintiff requests that Dr. Hobbs's evidence be stricken from the record. As discussed above, evidence sought in discovery need not be admissible so long as it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Therefore, Dr. Hobbs's submitted evidence is not due to be stricken and this Court finds that Objection #620 is due to be OVERRULED.

6. Plaintiff's Second — Notice of Objection to Admissibility of Evidence (Doc. #621)

In Plaintiff's Second — Notice of Objection to Admissibility of Evidence (Doc. #621), which the Court construes as a Motion to Strike ("Motion #621"), filed on May 5, 2008, Plaintiff objected to an affidavit filed by Dr. William Hobbs. Plaintiff again argued that Dr. Hobbs's evidence is inadmissible because Dr. Hobbs is no longer a licensed physician. Plaintiff does not object to a Magistrate Court order in Motion #621. Instead, Plaintiff cites law that a court can only consider admissible evidence on a motion for summary judgment. Doc. #621, pg. 2 (emphasis added). However, Dr. Hobb's affidavit was submitted as part of a Special Report and Answer in response to the Magistrate Court's request. (Doc. #144). Defendants did not submit evidence to support a summary judgment motion. Therefore, this Court finds that Motion #621 is due to be DENIED.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion and Order, it is hereby

ORDERED that

(1) Plaintiff's objection (Doc. #479) to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed on February 21, 2008 is OVERRULED;

(2) Plaintiff's Written Objections to Discovery Requests (Doc. #532) to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed on March 13, 2008 is OVERRULED;

(3) Plaintiff's Written Objections to Discovery Request (Doc. #551) to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed on March 24, 2008 is OVERRULED;

(4) Plaintiff's Written Objections to Discovery Requests (Doc. #552) to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed on March 24, 2008 is OVERRULED;

(5) Plaintiff's Written Objections to Court Order [sic] 601 602 (Doc. #620) to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed on May 5, 2008 is OVERRULED;

(6) Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Doc. #621), filed on May 5, 2008, is DENIED.

A copy of this checklist is available at the website for the USCA, 11th Circuit at www.ca11.uscourts.gov Effective on April 9, 2006, the new fee to file an appeal will increase from $255.00 to $455.00. CIVIL APPEALS JURISDICTION CHECKLIST

1. Appealable Orders : Appeals from final orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291: 28 U.S.C. § 158Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre, 701 F.2d 1 365 1 28 U.S.C. § 636 In cases involving multiple parties or multiple claims, 54Williams v. Bishop, 732 F.2d 885 885-86 Budinich v. Becton Dickinson Co., 486 U.S. 196 201 108 S.Ct. 1717 1721-22 100 L.Ed.2d 178LaChance v. Duffy's Draft House, Inc., 146 F.3d 832 837 Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a): Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Fed.R.App.P. 5 28 U.S.C. § 1292 Appeals pursuant to judicially created exceptions to the finality rule: Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 546 93 L.Ed. 1528Atlantic Fed. Sav. Loan Ass'n v. Blythe Eastman Paine Webber, Inc., 890 F.2d 371 376 Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., 379 U.S. 148 157 85 S.Ct. 308 312 13 L.Ed.2d 199 2. Time for Filing Rinaldo v. Corbett, 256 F.3d 1276 1278 4 Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1): 3 THE NOTICE MUST BE RECEIVED AND FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT NO LATER THAN THE LAST DAY OF THE APPEAL PERIOD — no additional days are provided for mailing. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(3): Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4): Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5) and 4(a)(6): Fed.R.App.P. 4(c): 28 U.S.C. § 1746 3. Format of the notice of appeal : See also 3pro se 4. Effect of a notice of appeal : 4

Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction conferred and strictly limited by statute: (a) Only final orders and judgments of district courts, or final orders of bankruptcy courts which have been appealed to and fully resolved by a district court under , generally are appealable. A final decision is one that "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." , 368 (11th Ci r. 1 983). A magistrate judge's report and recommendation is not final and appealable until judgment thereon is entered by a district court judge. (c). (b) a judgment as to fewer than all parties or all claims is not a final, appealable decision unless the district court has certified the judgment for immediate review under Fed.R.Civ.P. (b). , (11th Cir. 1984). A judg ment which resolves all issues except matters, such as attorneys' fees and costs, that are collateral to the merits, is immediately appealable. , , , , (1988); , (11th Cir. 1998). (c) Appeals are permitted from orders "granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions . . ." and from "[i]nterlocutory decrees . . . determining the rights and liabilities of parties to admiralty cases in which appeals from final decrees are allowed." Interlocutory appeals from orders denying temporary restraining orders are not permitted. (d) : The certification specified in (b) must be obtained before a petition for permission to appeal is filed in the Court of Appeals. The district court's denial of a motion for certification is not itself appealable. (e) Limited exceptions are discussed in cases including, but not limited to: , , 69S.Ct. 1221, 1225-26, (1949); , (11th Cir. 1989); , , , , (1964). Rev.: 4/04 : The timely filing of a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. , (11th Cir. 2001). In civil cases, Fed.R.App.P. (a) and (c) set the following time limits: (a) A notice of appeal in compliance with the requirements set forth in Fed.R.App.P. must be filed in the district court within 30 days after the entry of the order or judgment appealed from. However, if the United States or an officer or agency thereof is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within 60 days after such entry. Special filing provisions for inmates are discussed below. (b) "If one party timely files a notice of appeal, any other party may file a notice of appeal within 14 days after the date when the first notice was filed, or within the time otherwise prescribed by this Rule 4(a), whichever period ends later." (c) If any party makes a timely motion in the district court under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of a type specified in this rule, the time for appeal for all parties runs from the date of entry of the order disposing of the last such timely filed motion. (d) Under certain limited circumstances, the district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal. Under Rule 4(a)(5), the time may be extended if a motion for an extension is filed within 30 days after expiration of the time otherwise provided to file a notice of appeal, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Under Rule 4(a)(6), the time may be extended if the district court finds upon motion that a party did not timely receive notice of the entry of the judgment or order, and that no party would be prejudiced by an extension. (e) If an inmate confined to an institution files a notice of appeal in either a civil case or a criminal case, the notice of appeal is timely if it is deposited in the institution's internal mail system on or before the last day for filing. Timely filing may be shown by a declaration in compliance with or a notarized statement, either of which must set forth the date of deposit and state that first-class postage has been prepaid. Form 1, Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, is a suitable format. Fed.R.App.P. (c). A notice of appeal must be signed by the appellant. A district court loses jurisdiction (authority) to act after the filing of a timely notice of appeal, except for actions in aid of appellate jurisdiction or to rule on a timely motion of the type specified in Fed.R.App.P. (a)(4).