United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Western Division
HENRY HINTON, JR. PLAINTIFF
JANET MOORE and KIM SNOW DEFENDANTS
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Bramlette, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cause is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Michael T.
Parker's Report and Recommendation (docket entry 25).
Therein, Judge Parker recommends that plaintiff's claims
against defendant Kim Snow be dismissed with prejudice for
failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation,
plaintiff's objections thereto, and applicable statutory
and case law, the Court finds as follows:
Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff Henry Hinton is currently in the custody of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”).
This case arises from events that occurred while the
plaintiff was incarcerated at the Pike County Jail. Hinton
was housed in the jail as a pretrial detainee from June 30,
2014 until October 6, 2015, when he was convicted of multiple
felonies. Hinton remained at the jail as a post-conviction
inmate until November 24, 2015.
his second day at Pike County Jail, Hinton claims that
defendant Nurse Janet Moore performed his intake evaluation.
During this evaluation, Hinton told Nurse Moore that he did
not have high blood pressure but that he needed to be
provided a low salt diet due to his high blood pressure
tendencies. Nurse Moore allegedly told Hinton that the jail
did not offer a low salt diet and that she would decide what
the inmates needed. Hinton claims he submitted several sick
calls in the months following his evaluation, but Nurse Moore
allegedly refused to see him.
November 16, 2014, Hinton was taken to the Osyka Medical
Center, where he was examined by defendant Nurse Kim Snow.
During this examination, Nurse Snow determined that
Hinton's blood pressure was high and prescribed him
medication to address the problem. Hinton requested that
Nurse Snow provide him with an order requiring a low salt
diet, but Nurse Snow allegedly denied Hinton's request
and stated that she was informed the jail did not provide low
December 19, 2014 after returning to the jail, Hinton
informed Nurse Moore that he thought he had suffered a stroke
after his right arm “locked up.” Allegedly, Nurse
Moore responded that it would teach Hinton to stay out of
jail. Hinton continued to submit sick calls after
experiencing continued headaches, numbness, and dizziness,
but he claims that Nurse Moore refused to see him. Hinton
alleges that after he was transferred to MDOC custody in
November 2015, he was taken off high blood pressure
medication and placed on a low salt diet. Hinton also alleges
that he spoke with the kitchen supervisor at the Pike County
jail, who informed him that low salt meals could be provided
if ordered by the medical staff.
filed his pro se complaint on May 2, 2016, alleging claims
against Nurse Moore and Nurse Snow under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 and medical malpractice against Nurse Snow under state
On November 3, 2016, Magistrate Judge Parker entered his
Report and Recommendation sua sponte to dismiss all claims
against Nurse Snow for failure to state a claim under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).Hinton timely filed an Objection
to Judge Parker's recommendation on November 19,
Magistrate Judge's Findings
Report and Recommendation, Judge Parker found that Hinton
failed to state any cognizable claim against defendant Snow
under § 1983 because Nurse Snow's alleged conduct
failed to establish a deliberate indifference to Hinton's
medical needs. Nurse Snow was responsive to Hinton's
medical needs by providing him with high blood pressure
medication; therefore, Hinton's allegations were
insufficient to show that Nurse Snow “knew of and
disregarded a substantial risk of harm to the plaintiff's
health.” Report & Recommendation, p. 5. Absent any
constitutional violation by Nurse Snow, Judge Parker
concluded that Hinton's § 1983 claims must be
Parker also recommended that Hinton's medical malpractice
claim be dismissed based on the pre-suit notice requirement
set forth in Mississippi Code 15-1-36. Because Hinton failed
to provide Nurse Snow with 60 days' written notice prior
to filing suit, Judge Parker concluded that Hinton's
state law claim should also be dismissed.
party objects to the Magistrate's proposed findings and
recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court
conducts a de novo review of those recommendations to which
an objection is made. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); Shelby
v. Kind, 2012 WL 1455988 (S.D.Miss. April 27, 2012).
However, merely reurging the allegations in the petition or
attacking the underlying conviction is insufficient to
receive de novo review, and those portions of the report not
objected to are reviewed only for plain error.
v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n,79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29
(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other
grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court is not
required to reiterate the findings and conclusions of the
magistrate judge, nor is it required to consider objections
which are frivolous, conclusive or general in nature.
Koetting v. Thompson,995 F.2d 37, 40 (5th Cir.
1993); Battle v. U.S. Parole Commission, 834 F.2d
419, 421 (5th Cir. 1997). After its review, the Court may
accept, reject, or modify the recommendation of the
magistrate judge, receive ...