Dobbins v. Hulett et al (INMATE1)
OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 5/26/2011. (cc, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
WILLIAM GEOFFERY DOBBINS,
J.C. GILES and LEWIS
CIVIL ACTION NO.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff William
taken against him by defendants J.C. Giles and Lewis
This lawsuit is now before the court on the
recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge that
Giles and Hulett’s motion for summary judgment should be
excessive-force claim against Hulett in his individual
should go to trial.
Also before the court are Hulett’s
objections to the recommendation.
After an independent
and de novo review of the record, the court concludes
that Hulett’s objections should be overruled and the
magistrate judge’s recommendation adopted.
The court adds this comment.
Hulett argues, for the
first time, that Dobbins cannot recover for emotional
provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e).
however, that he raised this argument for the first time
in his objections.
Thus, the argument was not included
in Hulett’s summary-judgment motion, nor was it presented
to the magistrate judge or addressed by the magistrate
judge in her recommendation.
Because the only matter
recommendation, Hulett’s argument is not really before
the court at this time.
In addition, because Hulett did
not present his argument earlier, Dobbins has not had an
therefore, declines to address the argument at this time.
If Hulett still wishes to pursue the argument, he should
file a separate motion that presents it or he can raise
the issue at trial.
An appropriate order will be entered.
DONE, this the 26th day of May, 2011.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?