Opinion
Crim. 6:19-cv-00229-GFVT-HAI
09-15-2021
JOEL DENNIS CRAFTON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
ORDER
Gregory F. Van Tatenhove United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation [R. 42] filed by United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram, addressing the Government's Motion to Dismiss, or alternatively, for Summary Judgment. [R. 40.] Plaintiff Joel D. Crafton filed his pro se complaint in this matter in September of 2019 alleging improper medical care at USP McCreary and FMC Lexington. [R. 1.] Because Mr. Crafton is proceeding pro se, the Court referred this matter to Judge Ingram “to conduct all further pretrial proceedings, including overseeing discovery and preparing proposed findings of fact and recommendations on any future dispositive motions.” [R. 30 at 7.] Judge Ingram set out a scheduling order on February 2, 2021, which included deadlines for dispositive motions. [R. 32.] After the Government filed a timely motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on July 2, 2021, Judge Ingram instructed Mr. Crafton that any response was due by August 2. [R. 41.] Judge Ingram warned Crafton that “[a] failure to respond may result in granting the motion and entry of judgment in Defendant's favor.” [Id.] Crafton failed to file a response and Judge Ingram construed the Government's Motion as a motion for summary judgment. [R. 42 at 3.]
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is appropriate where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. “The failure to present any evidence to counter a well-supported motion for summary judgment alone is grounds for granting the motion.” Everson v. Leis, 556 F.3d 484, 496 (6th Cir. 2009). Judge Ingram did not simply grant the summary judgment motion on Mr. Crafton's failure to respond, alone. [See R. 42 at 3] (citing Carver v. Bunch, 946 F.2d 451, 455 (6th Cir. 1991). In finding summary judgment in favor of the Government appropriate, Judge Ingram found that, even accepting Mr. Crafton's factual allegations as true, he failed to establish the applicable duty of care through expert testimony as required by Kentucky law. [Id. at 4.] Consequently, Mr. Crafton's FTCA medical negligence claim fails as a matter of law. [Id.] (citing Grubbs ex rel. Grubbs v. Barbourville Family Health Ctr., P.S.C., 120 S.W.3d 682, 687-88 (Ky. 2003), as amended (Aug. 27, 2003) and Mullins v. Commonwealth Life Ins. Co., 839 S.W.2d 245, 247 (Ky. 1997)). Mr. Crafton has failed to meet his evidentiary burden and there is no genuine issue of fact as to the standard of care. The Court therefore agrees with Judge Ingram's recommendation that the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgement be GRANTED.
The Report and Recommendation notified parties of their appeal rights pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and directed parties to file any objections within fourteen (14) days of service of the Recommendation. [R. 42 at 7.] As of this date, neither party has filed objections nor sought an extension of time to do so.
Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). When no objections are made, this Court is not required to “review ... a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard....” See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Parties who fail to object to a magistrate's report and recommendation are also barred from appealing a district court's order adopting that report and recommendation. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record, and agrees with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, and the Court being sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram's Report and Recommendation [R. 42] as to Defendant Joel D. Crafton is ADOPTED as and for the Opinion of the Court;
2. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 40] is GRANTED;
3. JUDGMENT shall issue promptly.