Ramsey v. Haynes

          PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

          JOE J. VOLPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         INSTRUCTIONS

         The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.

         If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before either the District Judge or Magistrate Judge, you must, at the time you file your written objections, include the following:

         1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.

         2. Why the evidence to be proffered at the new hearing (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.

         3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing.

         From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing. Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to:

Clerk, United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

         DISPOSITION

         I. INTRODUCTION

         William Lewis Ramsey (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution located in Forrest City, Arkansas (“FCI-FC”). He has filed this pro se action, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging Defendants Physician Assistant Michelle Wingo and Does, who are unknown members of the Medical Procedures Scheduling Committee, failed to provide him with constitutionally adequate medical care after he tore his left bicep on or about November 2, 2017.^[1] (Doc. No. 4.) Plaintiff brings this claim against Defendants in their official and personal capacities, and monetary damages are the only relief he seeks. (Id.)

         Defendant Wingo has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing the claims against her should be dismissed because she is entitled to sovereign immunity and Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Doc. Nos. 21-23.) Plaintiff has not responded, and the time for doing so has passed. After careful consideration of this matter and for the following reasons, I find Defendant Wingo's Motion for Summary Judgment should be GRANTED and the claims against her should be DISMISSED. Although the Doe Defendants have ...