Opinion
Civil Action 1:21-CV-120
02-29-2024
DEMONTROUS WITCHER, Plaintiff, v. ARRON THOMPKINS, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MARCIA A. CRONE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, Demontrous Wittcher, an inmate confined at the Estelle Unit with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous defendants.
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record, and pleadings (#86). Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation (#91). This requires a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
The magistrate judge recommended dismissing Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Brenda Grogan, Jerran Coleman, Caesonia Allen, Sandra McMahon, Kimberly Horvath-Stevens, Dianne Simon, and Cheryl West in their official and individual capacities for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and as frivolous and for failure to state a claim (#86). While Plaintiff filed objections, they are conclusory, merely asserting that Plaintiff has met his burden of proof with respect to his claims of deliberate indifference. As outlined in the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff has failed to allege, let alone show, that Defendants Grogan and Coleman actually inferred a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff and then failed to take reasonable measures to abate it with respect to the handicap shower. As to the UTMB defendants, despite numerous opportunities to replead his complaint, Plaintiff fails to put forth factual allegations regarding their personal involvement in any constitutional violation. Plaintiff's pleadings are devoid of any factual allegations that these defendants were specifically aware of his fall and alleged injuries and then specifically denied him medical treatment immediately after the incident. Plaintiff has also failed to show the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. Thus, this case should be dismissed.
ORDER
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge (#86) is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered separately.