Guillotte v. Knowlin ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA BRIAN JOSEPH GUILLOTTE CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NUMBER: 21-1422 DR. PHILLIP KNOWLIN, ET AL. SECTION: “J” (5) ORDER Before the parties consented to proceed before the undersigned, this Court issued two partial reports and recommendations (“R&Rs”) to the District Court. (Rec. docs. 37, 42). In those reports, this Court had recommended the dismissal of Defendants CIodr.rectHealth Lafourche, L.L.C., Dr. Phillip Nowlin, and the Lafourche Parish Government. ( ). On January 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed late objections to the first R&R. (Rec. doc. 43). He has filed no objections to the second R&R. On February 1, 2022, after all of the parties consented to proceed before the undersigned, the District Court signed the referral of the entire lawsuit to this Court. (Rec. doc. 47). Accordingly, proceeding as a District Court would hITav IeS h OadR tDhEeR mEaDtt er not been referred to the undersigned, ADOPTED that the Partial R&Rs (Rec. docs. 37, 42) are as this Court’s final opinions, and Plaintiff’s federal-law claims against Defendants CoDrrIeScMtHISeSaEltDh LWaIfTouHr cPhReE, JLU.LD.CIC., EDr. Phillip Nowlin, and the Lafourche Parish Government are . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent Plaintiff asserts state-law claims for medical malpractice against Defendants CorrectHealth DLIaSfMouIrScShEeD, L W.LI.CT.H, DOrU. PTh PilRliEpJ NUoDwICliEn, Ia.n d theB Laacfkogurrochuen Pda rish Government, such claims are . See Guillotte is a frequent filer of lawsuits in this Court. ( E.D. La., Civ. A. Nos. 21- 1400, 21-1422, 21-1775, 21-1850, 21-2016). In this lawsuit, through largely illegible Complaints (Rec. docs. 1, 4, 4-1), Guillotte alleges claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to his medical needs, medical malpractice, and negligence by CorrectHealth, Dr. Phillip Nowlin, and the Lafourche Parish Government regarding the medical treatment that he received while incarcerated at Lafourche Parish Detention Center. On July 26, 2021, Guillotte filed a deficient complaint for habeas corpus and a writ of mandamus. (Rec. doc. 1). On September 14, 2021, Guillotte corrected the deficiency, still titling his complaint as a request for writs of habeas corpus and mandMaemnudso.z (aR-Teca.r danogc.o 4 v).. FLliobreersally construing Guillotte’s complaint – as this Court must do, , 982 F.3d 395, 399 (5th Cir. 2020) – the Clerk of Court construed Guillotte’s complaint as one of “prison condition” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the parties consented to proceed before the undersigned, this Court had already recommended that Defendants CorrectHealth, Dr. Phillip Nowlin, and the Lafourche Parish Government be dismissed from the lawsuit. (Rec. docs. 37, 42). II. Legal Standard Plaintiff dDiodu ngolat stsi mv. eUlyn iotebdje Scet rtvos .t Ahue tRo.& ARsss'. n Therefore, the Court reviews the R&Rs for cleasru pererroserd. ed by statute on other grounds , 79 F.3d 1415, 143se0e ( a5ltsho Cir. 1996) (en banc), , 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note (1983) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself thaMt tohnetrgeo ims enroy cvl.e Laor gesrdroonr on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”) ; , No. CV 20-756, 2021 WL 4133552, at *1 (E.D. LIIaI.. SeptL. a1w0, a2n0d2 1A)n.alysis Having reviewed Plaintiff’s objections (Rec. doc. 43) to this Court’s first R&R, this Court finds no clear error in either of the R&Rs. Plaintiff raises no argument in his objections that this Court did not already resolve in the R&Rs. Plaintiff’s arguments that Defendants misdiagnosed him, failed to perform a physical evaluation, that he suffers from extreme pain, and his desire for another medical opinion (Rec. doc. 43) were sufficiently addressed in this Court’s two earlier R&Rs. (Rec. docs. 37, 42). Having reviewed the R&Rs along with the applicable law, the Court finds that it did not clearly err when it determined that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants CorrectHealth, Dr. Phillip Nowlin, and the Lafourche Parish Government should be dismissed. The Court IthVe. refoCreo nadcloupstiso pnartial R&Rs (Rec. docs. 37, 42) as its opinions. FITo rI SthOeR foDrEeRgoEiDng reasons, OVERRULED that Plaintiff’s objections (Rec. doc. 43) are . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADOPTED that the Partial Reports and Recommendations (Rec. docs. 37, 42) are as this Court’s final opinions, and Plaintiff’s federal-law claims against Defendants CorDreIcStMHIeSaSltEhD L WafoITuHrc hPeR, ELJ.UL.DCI.,C DEr. Phillip Nowlin, and the Lafourche Parish GITo vIeSr nFmURenTtH aErRe ORDERED . that to the extent Plaintiff asserts state-law claims for medical malpractice against Defendants CorrectHealth DLIaSfMouIrScShEeD, L W.LI.CT.H, DOrU. PTh PilRliEp JNUoDwICliEn, and the Lafourche Parish Governme7ntth, such claims Fareeb ruary . New Orleans, Louisiana, this ____ day of ______________________, 2022. MICH AEL B . NORT H UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE