Opinion
CIVIL 2:18-CV-396
11-30-2021
JESSE MENDEZ, Plaintiff, v. P CHANG, et al, Defendants.
ORDER
HILDA TAGLE, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff Jesse Mendez's (“Mendez”) Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 48; a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Owen Murray, M.D., Philemon Chang, M.D., Isaac Kwarteng, M.D., Monica Pickthall, M.D., Tanya Lawson, Lannette Linthicum, M.D., Allen Hightower, and Bryan Collier (collectively “Defendants”), Dkt. No. 59; and the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”), Dkt. No. 67. The deadline to object to the M&R has passed, and no objections have been filed.
The M&R, citing to Defendants' First Amended Answer, notes that “Bryan Collier has been the acting TDCJ Executive Director since 2016 and should, therefore, be substituted in place of Defendant Livingston. Dkt. No. 67 at 2. The Court ORDERS the Clerk to substitute Defendant Bryan Collier for Defendant Brad Livingston.
After independently reviewing the record and applicable law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R, Dkt. No. 67, in substance. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 48. The Court GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 59, and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiffs deliberate indifference claims against Defendants.
The Court alters and adopts the following statement (with the correction in bold type):
• “Second, he must claim that the defendant's action was objectively unreasonable in light of the law that was clearly established at the time of the complained-of actions.” Dkt. No. 67 at 19.
• “In this case, because Plaintiff has failed to establish his Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants, it is not necessary to examine whether Defendants' actions were objectively unreasonable.” Id.