Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Clark v. Corrections Corporation of America

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Columbia Division

July 12, 2017

TAMIR CLARK #421853, Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.

          Crenshaw Chief Judge

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          JEFFERY S. FRENSLEY United States Magistrate Judge

         I. Introduction and Background

         This matter is before the Court upon a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) filed by Corrections Corporation of America (“CCA”), Cherry Lindamood, Kristen Buttram, and Dr. Ralph Newman (collectively “Defendants”), the only Defendants currently in this action. Docket No. 65. Along with their Motion, Defendants have contemporaneously filed a supporting Memorandum of Law, arguing that neither Plaintiff's Complaint (Docket No. 1) nor his “Amended and Supplemental Complaint” (Docket No. 64) contains allegations sufficient to state a claim against them for which relief can be granted. Docket No. 66.

         Plaintiff has not responded to the instant Motion.

         Plaintiff, a prisoner in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) who, at all times relevant to the case at bar, was housed at South Central Correctional Facility (“SCCF”), filed this pro se, in forma pauperis action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights when: (1) the medical department failed to timely remove his stitches and failed to respond to his sick call requests to have his stitches removed; (2) Dr. Newman, Plaintiff's SCCF psychiatrist, said he would “say something” to the nurses and medical staff about removing Plaintiff's stitches in “another week”; (3) Unit Manager Kristen Buttram refused to help Plaintiff, stating, “if you would never write damn grievances then I might help you”; and (4) Warden Cherry Lindamood answered Plaintiff's query regarding whether she had received the complaint and grievance he filed about the situation by stating, “I don't know what you expect me to do Mr. Clark, I can't make a doctor do his job, ” “all you guys wait until you come to prison and want to start worrying about your health care . . yall [sic] should start thinking about your well being before you come to prison.” Docket No. 1.[1]

         Plaintiff sues CCA as a private contractor for the State of Tennessee that is “legally responsible for the overall operation of South Central Correctional Facility, ” Cherry Lindamood as the SCCF Warden, Kristen Butram as the SCCF Unit Manager, and Dr. Ralph Newman as the SCCF psychiatrist, in their official and individual capacities. Id. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory damages in the amount of “$200, 000.00 against each defendant, jointly and severally” and punitive damages in the amount of “$80, 000.00 against each defendant, ” along with costs and any additional relief “this court deems just, proper, and equitable.” Id.

         Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss arguing that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim against upon which relief can be granted because, although Plaintiff avers that there was an unconstitutional delay in the removal of his stitches, none of them either administer, or are responsible for administering, any medical treatment for injuries such as Plaintiff's, such that they cannot be said to have acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against them should be dismissed. Docket No. 66. Regarding Plaintiff's claim of alleged retaliation by Defendant Buttram, Defendants essentially argue that: (1) Plaintiff's lone sentence quoted above is insufficient to establish that Defendant Buttram, either in her individual or her official capacity violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights; (2) Plaintiff has failed to respond to its discovery requests despite receiving an extension of time in which to do so; and (3) Plaintiff's “Amended and Supplemental Complaint” supercedes his original Complaint and fails to proffer any specific allegations whatsoever against Defendant Buttram or the other instant Defendants, such that Plaintiff's retaliation claim should also be dismissed. Id.

         As noted above, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

         For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned recommends that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 65) be GRANTED.

         II. Law and Analysis

         A. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)

         Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) provides that a claim may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In order to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all material elements to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory. Mezibov v. Allen, 411 F.3d 712, 716 (6th Cir. 2005). Conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual allegations will not suffice. Id. A complaint containing a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion of a legally cognizable right of action is insufficient. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). The “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level”; they must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. At 1965, 1974. See also, Ass'n of Cleveland Fire Fighters v. City of Cleveland, 502 F.3d 545, 548 (6th Cir. 2007).

         Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has recently addressed the appropriate standard that must be applied in considering a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim. SeeAshcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. ...


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.