Lamonte v. Waltzer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION SALVADORE LAMONTE PLAINTIFF V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-CV-285-KHJ-MTP NURSE NANCEY WALTZER DEFENDANT

ORDER Before the Court is the [29] Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker. The [29] Report recommends granting Defendant Nurse Nancey Waltzer’s (“Waltzer”) [25] Amended Motion for Summary Judgment.1 Report and Recommendation [29] at 1, 5. Written objections to the [29] Report were due by August 26, 2025. . at 5. And the [29] Report notified the parties that failure to file written objections by that date would bar further appeal in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. No party objected, and the time to do so has passed.

The Court must review de novo a magistrate judge’s report only when a party objects to the report within 14 days of being served with a copy. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no party timely objects, the Court applies “the clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law standard of review.” , 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (citation modified). And Although the [1] Complaint and later filings read “Nurse Nancey Waltzer”, Waltzer’s first name is “Nina.” [14] Order Directing Summons to Issue. For consistency, the Court does not correct Waltzer’s name in this Order. the Court need not “reiterate the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge.” , 995 F.2d 37, 40 (5th Cir. 1993) (per curiam).

Pro se Plaintiff Salvadore Lamonte (“Lamonte”) filed this Section 1983 claim in May 2024. Compl. [1] at 1. Lamonte is incarcerated with the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility (“CMCF”) in Pearl, Mississippi. at 2. CMCF employed Waltzer as a nurse. From September 2023 onward, Lamonte claims Waltzer refused to arrange offsite care for his swollen leg and damaged teeth. at 4–5.

Waltzer moved for summary judgment, arguing Lamonte failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.2 Def.’s Amended Mot. for Summ. J. [25]. On that basis, the [29] Report recommends granting Waltzer’s [25] Motion and dismissing this case without prejudice. [29] 1, 5. The Court agrees.

Finding the [29] Report neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the [29] Report as its opinion, GRANTS the [25] Motion for Summary Judgment, DENIES AS MOOT Waltzer’s original [20] Motion for Summary Judgment and DISMISSES the [1] Complaint without prejudice. In doing so, the Court has considered all arguments raised. Those arguments not addressed would not have altered the Court’s decision. The Court will enter a separate final judgment consistent with this Order.

2 The Magistrate Judge ordered Waltzer to amend her [20] Motion. Order [24].

Waltzer filed her [25] Amended Motion two weeks later. [25]. The Court finds as moot Waltzer’s original [20] Motion.

SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of September, 2025. s/ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE