Patterson v. United States

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

DAVID PATTERSON PLAINTIFF

V. CIVIL NO. 3:23-CV-3-DPJ-ASH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEFENDANT

ORDER David Patterson filed suit under the Federal Torts Claim Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), claiming prison officials negligently supervised him while on suicide watch, failed to allow Patterson’s participation in mental-health programs, negligently housed him in a level-one care facility, and failed to provide him immediate care after self-harm. Compl. [1] at 4–15. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment [97] arguing Patterson has failed to exhaust administrative remedies, establish all elements for his medical-malpractice claim, and prove prison officials’ negligence. Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. [97] at 1. On August 15, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Andrew S. Harris entered a Report and Recommendation [107]. Judge Harris carefully considered Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and recommended that the United States of America’s motion for summary judgment be granted, Patterson’s unexhausted claims be dismissed without prejudice, and Patterson’s other claims be dismissed with prejudice. R&R [107] at 17–18. Patterson did not file an objection, and the time do so has passed. See id. at 18 (informing Patterson that he had fourteen days to file an objection). “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983), quoted in Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) as noted in Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs., L.L.C., 875 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2017). Finding no clear error, the Court accepts the well-reasoned recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [107] of United States Magistrate Judge Andrew S. Harris is adopted as the finding and holding of this Court. Defendant’s motion

for summary judgment [97] is granted, Plaintiff’s unexhausted claims are dismissed without prejudice, and all other claims are dismissed with prejudice. A separate judgment will be entered as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 4th day of September, 2025.

s/ Daniel P. Jordan III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE