DAVIS v. PRATER

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATHENS DIVISION LEONARD LEE DAVIS, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 3:24-cv-00110-TES-CHW Officer PRATER, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

On February 11, 2025, Judge Weigle entered an Order and Recommendation [Doc. 7] granting Plaintiff Leonard Davis leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but recommending that the Court dismiss certain claims Plaintiff raises—namely, the deliberate indifference to medical needs claims against Officer Prater and Dr. Nolley. [Doc. 7]. Following that, Plaintiff filed Objections [Doc. 8] to Judge Weigle’s Recommendation. Therefore, the Court reviews Judge Weigle’s Recommendation de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). As a primer, the Court incorporates Judge Weigle’s factual narrative (which Plaintiff does not contest) to set the scene: Plaintiff states that on November 19, 2023, while he was a pretrial detainee in the Walton County Jail, Officer Willis maced him while Officer Prater watched. ECF No. 1 at 4. According to Plaintiff, Willis maced him because he told Willis and Prater that he did not want to take a shower. Id. at 5. After macing Plaintiff, they escorted him to see a nurse. Id. Plaintiff states that his “blood pressure was extremely high” and the nurse indicated he needed “immediate attention.” Id. at 5. But Officer Prater “refused to let him get seen and threw [him] in a holding cell.” Id. Plaintiff states he did not see the nurse again until three days later.

Plaintiff also alleges that “Dr. Nolley has been neglecting [him] medically.” Id. at 4. According to Plaintiff, Dr. Nolley “has not given [him] his pills properly” and has “neglected to do his job.” Id. at 5. Plaintiff states that “[i]t took ten months to see [a] cardiologist.” Id.

[Doc. 7, p. 5].

In his Recommendation, Judge Weigle concluded that Plaintiff failed to outline sufficient facts to show that “Prater’s actions (or inactions) caused him any injury.” [Id. at pp. 10–11]. Relatedly, Judge Weigle found that Plaintiff’s allegations as to Dr. Nolley were “conclusory and general.” [Id. at p. 11]. In rebutting those conclusions, Plaintiff’s Objections lay out a few more factual allegations, but not enough to change Judge Weigle’s well-reasoned analysis. Indeed, Plaintiff adds facts about his heart condition and how the macing incident made that condition worse. [Doc. 8, p. 2]. But, the macing incident is the basis for Plaintiff’s other claim—that Judge Weigle permitted to continue to discovery. As to his medical-needs claim, Plaintiff still hasn’t shown how the delay in seeing a nurse after being placed in a holding cell (1) is attributable to Officer Prater or Dr. Nolley, or (2) “how this delay harmed him in any way.” [Doc. 7, p. 11]. And, as to Dr. Nolley’s failure to refer Plaintiff to a cardiologist, Plaintiff still failed to articulate any facts showing “how th[e] ten-months delay [in seeing a cardiologist] impacted his health, if at all.” [Id.]. All Plaintiff offers is a hypothetical injury that he “may have had another heart attack unknowingly.” [Doc. 8, p. 4]. That

isn’t enough to state a deliberate-indifference claim. Brown v. Hughes, 894 F.2d 1533, 1537 (11th Cir. 1990). Having considered the Recommendation, the Court agrees with Judge Weigle’s

findings and conclusions. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS Judge Weigle’s Recommendation [Doc. 7] and MAKES IT THE ORDER OF THE COURT. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims of deliberate indifference to

medical needs as to Officer Prater and Dr. Nolley. SO ORDERED, this 24th day of February, 2025.

S/ Tilman E. Self, III TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT