Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Joyner v. Tanner

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

January 25, 2019

TRACEY DAVID JOYNER
v.
ROBERT TANNER, ET AL.

         SECTION: “A” (1)

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          JANIS VAN MEERVELD, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff, Tracey David Joyner, a state prisoner, filed this pro se and in forma pauperis civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sued Robert Tanner, Keith Beckham, Robert Cleveland, Laura Buckly, Beverly Kelly, Floyd Brooks, Casey McVea, Marsha Culpepper, Brink Hillman, Karla Hillman, “Medical Staff, ” Kevin Luper, Sheret Luper, Billy Anderson, Mike Todd, Gina Todd, and “Security Officials.” His statement of his claims, without corrections to grammar or spelling, is as follows:

Plaintiff primary claims negligent in diagnosing by physician Dr. Casey McVea for Crohn's disease and mere malpractice by Dr. Robert Cleveland due to a tort duty of care. But repeatedly continued treat plaintiff by hearsay of Dr. McVea as his replacement. Which NO records by extensive medical examinations his tested positive diagnoseing plaintiff ever having Crohn diseas. 27 times and 45 doctor visits not one were referrals to offsite doctors. Not one was to be retested by either RCC physicians to be tested for Crohns diseas since 2011-2018. Resulting in side effects, injuries to prescrib med's also retaliation due to nepotism.[1]

         Federal law mandates that federal courts “review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Regarding such lawsuits, federal law further requires:

         On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint -

(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

         Additionally, with respect to actions filed in forma pauperis, such as the instant lawsuit, federal law similarly provides:

         Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ... the action …

(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.