JOHNSON v. MIDDLEBROOKS et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
DEONSEY LONTE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No.: 5:24cv209-MW/MJF
MANAGEMENT & TRAINING
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________/
ORDER VACATING ORDER, CONSIDERING OBJECTIONS, AND
ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This 	Court 	previously 	adopted 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s 	report 	and
recommendation without objection from either side and dismissed Plaintiff’s
deliberate indifference claims against Defendants Owens, Thomas, and Snell, for the
alleged denial of medical care on February 5, 2022, and February 12, 2022. ECF No.
55. On April 10, 2026, however, this Court received Plaintiff’s objections, which
were delayed in the mail. ECF No. 57. In an abundance of caution, this Court directs
the Clerk is directed to VACATE this Court’s order, ECF No. 55, so that this Court
can consider Plaintiff’s objections.
Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge erred in failing to consider his
verified allegation of the pain he experienced from the wounds he suffered following
the attack on February 5, 2022. However, as the Magistrate Judge noted in his report
Case 5:24-cv-00209-MW-MJF Document 58 Filed 04/13/26 Page 1 of 3

2
and recommendation, “[a] wound assessed as a ‘scratch,’ even if uncomfortable,
certainly falls short of a serious medical need.” ECF No. 51 at 6 (quoting Williams
v. Corr. Health, 2019 WL 2335941, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 22, 20219), report and
recommendation adopted sub nom. Williams v. Correct Health, 2019 WL 2339266
(S.D. Ga. May 31, 2019)). Importantly, Plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating “an
objectively serious medical need,” for which the alleged response by Defendants
“was poor enough to constitute an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’ and
not merely accidental inadequacy, negligence in diagnosis or treatment, or even
medical malpractice actionable under state law.” Taylor v. Adams, 221 F.3d 1254,
1258 (11th Cir. 2000) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Here, Plaintiff’s complaint includes the medical notes from his evaluation two
days after the attack on February 5, 2022, in which medical staff assessed his wounds
to be “scratches” that had already “scabbed over.” ECF No. 35 at 60. Accordingly,
while these scratches may have been painful, they do not amount to an objectively
serious medical need, and this Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion
that Plaintiff’s allegations and attachments to his second amended complaint do not
give rise to a claim for medical deliberate indifference against Defendants Ownes,
Thomas, and Snell based on the February 5th incident.
Having considered Plaintiff’s objection, ECF No. 55, de novo, this Court
again accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, ECF
Case 5:24-cv-00209-MW-MJF Document 58 Filed 04/13/26 Page 2 of 3

3
No. 51. Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference to a serious medical need claim against
Defendants Owens, Thomas, and Snell for any denial or delay of medical care on
February 5, 2022, is DISMISSED. Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need claim against Defendants Owens, Thomas, and Snell for any denial or
delay of medical care on February 12, 2022, is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed
to remand this case to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED on April 13, 2026.
s/Mark E. Walker 	____
United States District Judge
Case 5:24-cv-00209-MW-MJF Document 58 Filed 04/13/26 Page 3 of 3