Wiley v. Glover et al (INMATE1)
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
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?