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.

Turner v. Parker

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

February 7, 2019

RANDALL TURNER, Plaintiff,
v.
TONY PARKER, et al., Defendants.

          Trauger 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 Plaintiff's Amended Complaint filed by Defendant Arthur Bellott, M.D. (“Defendant”).[1] Docket No. 76. Along with his Motion, Defendant has filed a supporting Memorandum of Law. Docket No. 75.

         Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

         Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint in this pro se, in forma pauperis action on December 10, 2018, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendant was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Docket No. 70. Plaintiff sues Defendant in his official capacity, [2] seeking $450, 000.00 in compensatory and punitive damages. Id.

         Defendant filed the instant Motion and supporting Memorandum of Law arguing that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to state a claim against him for which relief can be granted because: (1) Plaintiff's allegations against him are conclusory; (2) Plaintiff fails to allege with any specificity that Defendant was involved in Dr. Johnson's decision to discontinue Plaintiff's Neurontin prescription; and (3) Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to his claims against Defendant as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a) . Docket Nos. 75, 76. Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against him and further asks that “costs be taxed to the Plaintiff, for which execution may issue.” Docket No. 76, p. 2.

         For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint has failed to state a claim against Defendant Bellott for which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Defendant Bellott's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Docket No. 76) be GRANTED, that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Bellott be DISMISSED, and that Defendant Bellott be TERMINATED as a party in this action.

         II. Allegations of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint[3]

         Plaintiff's allegations against Defendant Bellott, in their entirety, are as follows:

Doctor Bellot was working in concern with Dr. Johnson to deny the plaintiff medical treatment. Doctor Bellot stated it were Dr. Johnson taking me off my medication. When I did see Doctor Bellot he would never bring my medical file with him. In fairness to Doctor Bellot plaintiff located a letter he wrote Dr. Bellot dated 2-2-2017 in that he did place me back on neurotin for thirty days. . . . I also file grievance on Dr. Bellot but that grievance was not process by grievance Chairperson. . . .

         . . . Doctor Bellot did not come to my segregation on 1-18-2018. . . . Docket No. 70, pp. 1-2.

         III. Law and Analysis

         A. Motion to Dismiss: ...


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.