Gerkin v. McMurdo ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LUKE A. GERKIN (#583904) CIVIL ACTION VERSUS HAL MCMURDO, ET AL. NO. 19-00249-BAJ-SDJ RULING AND ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Dr. Hal McMurdo’s Motion For Summary Judgment, seeking dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff’s sole remaining claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S Constitution. (Doc. 51). Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an opposition to Defendant’s Motion, but failed to cite any evidence in the record to support his constitutional claim, or even respond to Defendant’s Statement of Uncontested Material Facts supporting the Motion. On January 6, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 51) recommending that Defendant’s Motion be granted, that Plaintiff’s federal claim be dismissed with prejudice, and that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims Plaintiff may pursue. (Doc. 51). Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation but, again, does not cite any evidence to support his constitutional claim, much less sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute defeating summary judgment. (See Doc. 52). As this Court has previously cautioned, summary judgment is about evidence, and a party that fails to direct the Court’s attention to any evidence supporting his claims cannot carry his burden of showing a genuine, material dispute. Combs v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 18-cv-00459, 2020 WL 5121362, at *6 (M.D. La. Aug. 31, 2020). Having carefully considered Defendant’s Motion, Plaintiff’s opposition, and related filings—including Plaintiff’s objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation—the Court APPROVES the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and ADOPTS it as the Court’s opinion in this matter. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s sole remaining constitutional claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims Plaintiff may assert. A judgment will issue separately. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 19th day of February, 2021 ______________________________________ JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 2