United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
STARRETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
CAUSE IS BEFORE THE COURT for an evaluation of
Plaintiff's claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2)(B), on plaintiff's ore tenus motion to
dismiss certain defendants at the Spears hearing,
and on plaintiff's Motion  for Entry of Default
Judgment. Having considered the record and applicable law,
the Spears hearing, the Omnibus Order , the
Report and Recommendations  by Magistrate Judge Michael
T. Parker and the Objections to Report and Recommendations
and Motion to Set Aside the Omnibus Order and Reassign the
Case for Hearing De Novo  and  and the Court
does hereby find as follows:
JURISDICTION AND SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
Plaintiff's claims are brought under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, the Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff was incarcerated at the
Forrest County Adult Detention Center during the alleged
events, but he currently is incarcerated at a federal
correctional institution in Talladega, Alabama. The
Plaintiff's claims and relief sought were clarified and
amended by his sworn testimony at the
hearing, Plaintiff clarified that he did not want to sue
Defendants Nurse Jacqueline Duckworth, John Doe 16, John Doe
17, John Doe 19 and moved to voluntarily dismiss them. They
will be dismissed.
also suing various medical providers, Forrest County, and
Forrest County officials because he claims that Defendant
Deputy Greg Anderson mistakenly gave him a used syringe for
his insulin shot, and after being stuck with it, he was not
given adequate follow up care. See Omnibus Order
. He claims Forrest County has a practice or policy of
allowing non-medical personnel to dispense prescription
medication and does not follow a proper protocol when someone
is exposed to possible diseases. Id.
clarified at the hearing, Plaintiff sues Betty Carlisle,
Charles Bolton, and Billy Magee as they are supervisors in
Forrest County and are responsible for what happens at the
jail. He is also suing Billy Magee, William Allen, and Debra
Brown for not responding to his public records request after
he left Forrest County. He claims that this somehow denied
him access to the court and impeded him from filing suit or
litigating because he lacked documents. All claims against
Betty Carlisle, Charles Bolton, William Allen, and Debra
Brown should be dismissed. All claims against Billy Magee
should be dismissed except claims against him in his official
capacity related to medical policy at the jail.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
party objects to a Report and Recommendation this Court is
required to “make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also Longmire v. Gust,
921 F.2d 620, 623 (5th Cir. 1991) (Party is
“entitled to a de novo review by an Article
III Judge as to those issues to which an objection is
made.”) Such review means that this Court will examine
the entire record and will make an independent assessment of
the law. The Court is not required, however, to reiterate the
findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.
Koetting v. Thompson, 995 F.2d 37, 40
(5th Cir. 1993) nor need it consider objections
that are frivolous, conclusive or general in nature.
Battle v. United States Parole Commission, 834 F.2d
419, 421 (5th Cir. 1997). No factual objection is
raised when a petitioner merely reurges arguments contained
in the original petition. Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d
290, 293 (5th Cir. 1993).
. PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Petitioner is obviously aggrieved with the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge  and with the
Omnibus Order . He first complains about the way the
Magistrate Judge conducted the Omnibus Hearing. The
allegations concerning the Magistrate's conduct are
conclusory and lack factual allegations. He continues in a
rambling and irrelevant statement about his 1983 civil rights
action and makes conclusory statements that do not address
the Report and Recommendation.
next paragraph also advances conclusory allegations regarding
his “novel constitutional claims” without listing
same, and requests again appointed counsel and then tries to
establish a Federal property interest in public records. He
continues to ramble and make irrelevant statements that do
not address the Report and Recommendation.
Parker in his Report and Recommendation addresses the Public
Records Act request and the allegations regarding same as
submitted by Petitioner as irrelevant, conclusory and
incorrect. Without addressing the specifics of the Report and
Recommendation he accuses the Magistrate Judge of
mischaracterization of the events of the Omnibus hearing.
third allegation he claims that defendant Scott's
employer should be substituted for John Doe #27. The Court
notes that Scott's employer is Forrest ...