Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Raiford v. County of Forrest

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division

April 4, 2018




         THIS 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 [36] for Entry of Default Judgment. Having considered the record and applicable law, the Spears hearing, the Omnibus Order [50], the Report and Recommendations [51] 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 [61] and [62][1] and the Court does hereby find as follows:


         Because 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 Spears[2] hearing.

         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.

         He is 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 [50]. 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.

         As 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.


         When a 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).


         The Petitioner is obviously aggrieved with the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge [51] and with the Omnibus Order [50]. 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.

         His 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.

         Judge 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.

         In his 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.