Gwathney v. Keller et al (INMATE1)

Filing 44

ORDER directing as follows: (1) the plf's 42 objections be and are hereby OVERRULED; (2) defendant Warren's 43 objections be and are hereby OVERRULED; (3) the 37 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Mag Judge is adopted; (4) the 20 moti on for summary judgment filed on behalf of defendants Burns, Normand, Bell, and Keller be GRANTED and the claims asserted against these defendants be DISMISSED with prejudice; (5) the motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of defendant Warren be GRANTED to the extent he has been sued in his official capacity; (6) defendants Burns, Normand, Bell, and Keller be DISMISSED as parties to this cause of action; and (7) the plf's claim that defendant Warren used excessive force against him be set for a jury trial before the district judge assigned to this case. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 9/21/11. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
CHARLES GWATHNEY,
Reg. No. 26596-051,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN KELLER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACT. NO. 2:09cv479-MEF

ORDER
On August 31, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this case
recommending that the motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of defendants Steve
Burns, Tony Normand, Thomas Bell, and Jeffrey Keller be GRANTED and the claims
asserted against these defendants be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. No. 37.) In
addition, the Magistrate Judge determined that the plaintiff has demonstrated a genuine
issue of material fact sufficient to preclude entry of summary judgment on his excessive
force claim against defendant Roger Warren in his individual capacity, although
defendant Warren is entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim lodged against
him in his official capacity. (Id.)
On September 16, 2011, both the plaintiff and defendant Warren filed objections
to the Recommendation. (Doc. Nos. 42 & 43.) After careful review and consideration of
the objections, and upon an independent review of the Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge and file in this case, it is

ORDERED as follows:
1.

The plaintiff’s objections (Doc. No. 42) be and are hereby OVERRULED;

2.

Defendant Warren’s objections (Doc. No. 43) be and are hereby
OVERRULED;

3.

The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #37) filed on August
31, 2011 is adopted;

4.

The motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 20) filed on behalf of
defendants Burns, Normand, Bell, and Keller be GRANTED and the claims
asserted against these defendants be DISMISSED with prejudice;

5.

The motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of defendant Warren be
GRANTED to the extent he has been sued in his official capacity;

6.

Defendants Burns, Normand, Bell, and Keller be DISMISSED as parties to
this cause of action; and

7.

The plaintiff’s claim that defendant Warren used excessive force against
him be set for a jury trial before the district judge assigned to this case.
st

DONE this the 21 day of September, 2011.

/s/ Mark E. Fuller
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2