Wiley v. Glover et al (INMATE1)

Filing 51

ORDER overruling plaintiff's 46 Objection to Report and Recommendations; adopting 37 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; dismissing all claims against Houston County Jail Staff with prejudice; granting 14 MOTION for Summary Judgment and 32 Suppl emental Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of the properly named Defendants; that Judgment shall be entered in favor of all Defendants and against Plaintiff and all claims against all properly named Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice; t hat all Costs shall be taxed against Plaintiff; that this case having been dismissed with prejudice with respect to all claims against all Defendants, the Clerk of the Court shall close this file; that a separate final judgment will be entered consistent with this Order. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 1/9/2009. (cc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA OF S O U T H E R N DIVISION M IC H A E L LEWIS WILEY, P l a i n t if f , v. L A M A R GLOVER, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C A S E NO. 1:05-cv-1156-MEF WO

ORDER T h is cause is before the Court on the Recommendation by the Magistrate Judge that th e Defendants' pending motion for summary judgment should be granted and on Plaintiff's o b je c tio n s to that recommendation. The Court agrees with the Report and Recommendations a n d writes separately only to further address the objections to the extent that they raise issues n o t previously argued or addressed. Plaintiff relies in his objection on The Religious Land U se and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 200cc-1. This reliance is m isp lac e d because he did not invoke this statute in any way in either his Complaint or his A m e n d e d Complaint.1 Thus, any reference to RLUIPA in his objections provides no basis

Plaintiff did invoke RFRA, but this does not create a claim separate from Plaintiff's F irs t Amendment claim because RFRA is not applicable to the Complaint filed in this case. " In City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 536, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 2172, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1 9 9 7 ), the Supreme Court held that the RFRA was unconstitutional as applied to the states b e c au s e it exceeded Congress's power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, the R F R A does not apply to state regulations or state actors." Brunskill v. Boyd, 141 Fed. Appx. 7 7 1 , 775 (11th Cir. 2005). The Defendants in this case are considered state actors both in b o th their daily operation of the Houston County Jail and in establishing policies/regulations f o r the jail. See, e.g., Turquitt v. Jefferson County, Alabama, 137 F.3d 1285, 1289 (11th Cir. 1 9 9 8 ) (Under all facets of Alabama law, a county sheriff and his jailers act exclusively as sta te officicals "when supervising inmates and otherwise operating the county jails."); see A la. Const. Art. V, § 112 (designates sheriff as member of State's executive department); see a ls o Parker v. Amerson, 519 So.2d 442 (Ala. 1987) (county sheriff is executive officer of

1

f o r relief. For the foregoing reasons and after an independent review of the file, it is the O R D E R , JUDGMENT and DECREE of the Court that: 1 . The Plaintiff's objection (Doc. #46) to the Recommendation of the Magistrate J u d g e filed on December 1, 2008 is OVERRULED; 2 . The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #37) filed on September 3, 2 0 0 8 is ADOPTED; 3 . All claims against Houston County Jail Staff are DISMISSED with prejudice. 4 . The Motion for Summary Judgment and the supplemental Motion for Summary Ju d g m en t (Doc. # 14 and Doc. # 32) filed on behalf of the properly named Defendants are GRANTED. 5. Judgment shall be entered in favor of all Defendants and against Plaintiff and a ll claims against all properly named Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice. 6. Costs shall be taxed against Plaintiff. 7. This case having been dismissed with prejudice with respect to all claims a g a in s t all Defendants, the Clerk of the Court shall close this file. 8. A separate final judgment will be entered consistent with this Order. DONE this the 9th day of January, 2009. /s/ Mark E. Fuller CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

the State). Accordingly, even if the Court construes the complaint to allege a violaiton of R F R A , such claim is without merit and provides no basis for relief to the plaintiff. 2