Mayo v. Botaw

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington) JASON R. MAYO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 5:22-CV-073-CHB ) v. ) ) ORDER ADOPTING SHELLI VOTAW CONYERS, et al.,1 ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ) REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Defendants. ) *** *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Candace J. Smith. See [R. 32]. The Report and Recommendation addresses the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Defendants, in which the Defendants argue the Plaintiff’s constitutional claims fail as a matter of law. See [R. 28]. Plaintiff failed to file a response to the Defendant’s Motion, and he also failed to file any response when directed to do so by the Magistrate Judge. See generally [R. 29] (setting deadline for Plaintiff to file a response to the Defendants’ Motion and to file a notice regarding his intent to prosecute this action); see also [R. 32, p. 4] (discussing Plaintiff’s failure to file any response or notice as ordered). In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Smith detailed the procedural history of this case and the facts upon which the Plaintiff bases his claimed violations of the Eighth Amendment. See [R. 32, pp. 1–5]. Upon review, Magistrate Judge Smith determined that Plaintiff “received constitutionally adequate care, has not produced any expert medical evidence to support his assertions, and cannot prove that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs” and that “Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this basis.” Id. at 14. 1 The Court uses the name of this Defendant as identified by prior order. See [R. 14, p. 3]. She further found that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action and that dismissal on that basis is also appropriate. See id. at 14–15. Magistrate Judge Smith’s Report and Recommendation advised the parties that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of the Recommendation’s entry on February 13, 2024. See id. at 18. No objections have been filed by either party. Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). When no objections are made, this Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard.” See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Parties who fail to object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition are also barred from appealing a district court’s order adopting that recommended disposition. See United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 495 (6th Cir. 2017); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 , 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Specifically, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determination that Plaintiff has failed to show any genuine issue of material fact exists concerning whether he received constitutionally inadequate medical care for his hand injury. See Rhinehart v. Scutt, 894 F.3d 721 , 735–39 (6th Cir. 2018) (discussing deliberate indifference standard for claim of inadequate medical treatment under the Eighth Amendment). The Court also agrees that dismissal is appropriate because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action. See Rogers v. City of Warren, 302 F. App’x 371, 376 (6th Cir. 2008) (discussing factors for court to assess appropriateness of involuntary dismissal of complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41). Accordingly, the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [R. 32] is ADOPTED as the Opinion of this Court. 2. The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 28] is GRANTED. 3. A separate judgment shall issue. This the 5th day of March, 2024. ee □ le CLARIAHORN BOOM, Pillage J UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE “oye”: EASTERN AND WESTERN DISTRICTS OF VSG" = KENTUCKY -3-