Ortega v. Adkins

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION LEXINGTON

JOHNNY RAY ORTEGA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 5:23-cv-00288-GFVT-EBA ) V. ) ) JESSICA ADKINS, ) ORDER ) Defendants. ) )

*** *** *** ***

This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation [R. 26] filed by United States Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins, addressing a Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 22] and Motion to Compel filed by the Defendant. [R. 20.] This matter stems from the Plaintiff’s allegation that the Defendant refused to provide Mr. Ortega with his prescribed medication. [R. 1 at 2.] Ms. Adkins filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that Mr. Ortega lacked evidence that Ms. Adkins acted with deliberate indifference and Mr. Ortega did not provide any expert proof that his alleged injuries were caused by Adkins’s conduct. [R. 22-1 at 5-11.] While Ortega did not respond to Ms. Adkins Motion for Summary Judgment, he filed a letter asserting that he is now receiving medication and that he did not “know if it makes sense to continue with this suit.” [R. 24 at 1.] Judge Atkins construed this letter “to mean that Ortega is no longer interested in pursuing his lawsuit.” [R. 26 at 3.] Further, after reviewing the record, Judge Atkins concluded that summary judgment is warranted, but the motion to compel should be denied as moot. Id. at 6. The Report and Recommendation notified parties of their appeal rights pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and directed parties to file any objections within fourteen (14) days of service of the Recommendation. Id. at 6. Neither party has filed objections. 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)(c). 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, 151 (1985). Parties who fail to object to a magistrate’s report and recommendation are also barred from appealing a district court’s order adopting that report and recommendation. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record, and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court having considered the record and being otherwise sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The Recommended Disposition [R. 26] as to Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgement [R. 22] and the Defendant’s Motion to Compel [R. 20] is ADOPTED as and for the Opinion of the Court; and 2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 22] is GRANTED; and 3. Defendant’s Motion to Compel [R. 20] is DENIED AS MOOT. This the 3rd day of April 2025.

— rh Wed yvrr Eas OSS Ot gs eo Gregory F*Van Tatenhove United States District Judge