Jones v. F.C.I. Beckley Med. Staff Emps., CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-cv-00530
| Decision Date | 15 October 2013 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-cv-00530 |
| Parties | MR. STEVE JONES, Plaintiff, v. F.C.I. BECKLEY MED. STAFF EMPLOYEES, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint ("Compl.") (Document 2), the United States' Motion to Dismiss Defendants Conley White, Janeen Rose and Frances Lilly and Substitute the United States (Document 16), the United States Motion to Dismiss Medical Negligence Claims for Failure to State a Claim (Document 18), Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 23), Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ( ) (Document 27), Defendants' First Amended Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 28), the United States' First Amended Motion to Dismiss Defendants Conley White, Janeen Rose and Frances Lilly and Substitute the United States (Document 30), and attached exhibits, together with all written submissions in support and in opposition. By Standing Order (Document 4) entered August 8, 2011, this action was referred to the Honorable R. Clarke VanDervort, United States MagistrateJudge, for submission to this Court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
On January 11, 2013, the Magistrate Judge submitted his Proposed Findings and Recommendation ("PF&R") (Document 43), wherein he recommended that this Court: (1) grant the United States' First Amended Motion to Dismiss Defendants Conley White, Janeen Rose and Frances Lilly and Substitute the United States (Document 30); (2) deny as moot the United States' Motion to Dismiss Defendants Conley White, Janeen Rose and Frances Lilly and Substitute the United States (Document 16); (3) grant the United States' Motion to Dismiss Medical Negligence Claims for Failure to State a Claim (Document 18); and (4) grant the Defendants' First Amended Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 28); (5) deny as moot the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 23); and (6) refer this matter back to him for further proceedings regarding Plaintiff's FTCA claim.
On January 28, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections to Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 44) and ordered that Plaintiff file written objections by February 7, 2013. (Document 45.)
The Court did not receive objections by February 7, 2013. On February 11, 2013, the Court entered its Memorandum Opinion and Order finding that neither party had timely filed objections, adopting the Magistrate's PF&R, and ordering that: (1) the United States' First Amended Motion to Dismiss Defendants Conley White, Janeen Rose and Frances Lilly and Substitute the United States (Document 30) be granted; (2) the United States' Motion to DismissDefendants Conley White, Janeen Rose and Frances Lilly and Substitute the United States (Document 16) be denied as moot; (3) the United States' Motion to Dismiss Medical Negligence Claims for Failure to State a Claim (Document 18) be granted; and (4) the Defendants' First Amended Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 28) be granted; (5) the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 23) be denied as moot; and (6) this matter be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings regarding Plaintiff's FTCA claim. (Document 47.) However, on the dame date of February 11, 2013, the clerk's office received Plaintiff's objections to the PF&R. (Document 46.)
On February 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed "Objections and Traverse(s) to both Magistrates Report and Recommendations adopted Premature by United States District Judge Irene C. Berger" (Document 48). Plaintiff argues that because his objections were received by prison authorities before the deadline, under the prisoner mailbox rule, his objections were timely and the Court erred in issuing its Memorandum Opinion and Order. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff argues that pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court must rescind its Memorandum Opinion and Order as an error of law or fact and alter or amend judgment. (Id. at 3.) No response was filed.
Because there has not been a final judgment in this case, and Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies only to final judgments, (See Fayetteville Investors v. Commercial Builders, Inc., 936 F.2d 1462, 1469 (4th Cir.1991)), the Court construes Plaintiff's"Objections and Traverse(s)" as a motion under Rule 54(b).1 Pursuant to Rule 54(b), "any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities." Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); see also Am. Canoe Assoc. v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505, 514-15 (4th Cir.2003) (). The power to reconsider or modify interlocutory rulings "is committed to the discretion of the district court." Am. Canoe, 326 F.3d at 515.
The Court finds that Plaintiff's motion under Rule 54(b) should be granted only to the extent that he seeks review of his objections because his objections are, in fact, timely. The envelope in which Plaintiff's objections were filed was date-stamped by the Beaumont Federal Correctional Institution on February 6, 2013. (Document 46 at 22.) Under the "mailbox rule" of Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), a document is deemed filed by a prisoner when it is delivered to prison officials for mailing. (Id. at 276.) Because Plaintiff's objections were processed by FCI Beaumont, the facility where he was confined at the time, on February 6, 2013, the day before the deadline for filing objections, the Court finds that his objections (Document 46) are timely. Therefore, the Court will vacate its previous Memorandum Opinion and Order (Document 47) and undertake a de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate's PF&R towhich objection is made. After thorough review and consideration, the Court finds, for the reasons stated herein, that Plaintiff's objections should be overruled.
Magistrate Judge VanDervort's PF&R sets forth in detail the parties' motions. The Court now incorporates by reference those facts and procedural history. To provide context for the ruling herein, the Court provides the following summary.
On August 8, 2011, Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed his Complaint pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b) and 2671, et seq., and Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) against FCI Beckley Medical Employees, Mr. White (Nurse or Physician's Assistant), Mrs. Lilly (Nurse), and Mrs. Rose (Nurse) for negligently and recklessly running him down in a medical golf cart and fleeing the scene. (Compl. at 2, 6, 9.) Plaintiff alleges that on August 25, 2009, he was standing on the sidewalk at FCI Beckley when "a battery powered vehicle driven by Nurse White, who was accompanied by Nurse Lilly and Nurse Rose . . . struck [him] in [his] upper left arm." (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff asserts that "[t]he actions [of] all three employees can only be concluded as extreme negligence and total disregard for [his] health and safety because they kept going and did not to my knowledge even return to the scene of the accident after injuring [him]." (Id.) He further asserts that after the incident no one came to his aid and that he reported to FCI Beckley Medical Section to be treated. (Id. at 5.) He states that he was "triaged, ex-rayed and examined by the staff in the medical section [and] . . . was given a sling to apply to [his] left arm to support it and [was]prescribed a non-steroid anti-inflammatory medication, ibuprofen 800 milligram dosage three times a day." (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that since the accident, he has suffered "daily from lower back pain, pain and numbness in [his] neck, pain in [his] left shoulder, pain in [his] left arm, pain in [his] left leg [/] foot and toes." (Id.) He contends that the "numbness in [his] left upper and lower extremities is consistent with neurological or nerve damage." (Id.) He further states that his request for an MRI, "to find out the full extent of [his] injuries," was denied by the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"). (Id. at 6.) He contends that "[t]he denial of an MRI coupled with the fact that at the time of [his] injury [he] was run into by staff and then left at the scene should be regarded as cruel and unusual punishment and total indifference to [his] medical needs." (Id.) Plaintiff requests that the Court order the BOP to "give [him] an MRI," grant him a jury trial, and award him damages in the amount of $500,000. (Id. at 8.)
On April 25, 2012, the United States filed a Motion to Dismiss Defendants Conley White, Janeen Rose and Frances Lilly and Substitute the United States (Document 16), attached exhibit, and memorandum in support (Document 17). Based on the attached United States Attorney's Certification (Document 16-1), the United States asserts that Defendants White, Rose and Lilly were acting within the scope of their office or employment at the time of the incident, and therefore, pursuant to the FTCA, Plaintiff's tort claim must proceed as an action against the United States. (Document 17 at 1-2.)
On April 26, 2012, the United States filed a ...
To continue reading
Request your trial