Luster v. Jones et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 28

ORDER that 27 Report and Recommendations is ADOPTED; that (1) Defendants' 10 motion for summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff's constitutional claims for monetary damages lodged against them in their official capacities be GRANT ED; (2) 10 motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of Defendants Jones, Giles, Nettles, Perkins, Hampton, Jackson, Johnson, Benton, and Bennett regarding Plaintiffs claims against these defendants in the remaining aspects of their official capa cities and in all aspects of their individual capacities be GRANTED; (3) 10 motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of Defendants Terry and Barber with respect to all claims contained in the complaint, with the exception of the July 7, 2009, e xcessive force claim lodged against Defendants Terry and Barber, be GRANTED; (4) 10 motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of Defendants Terry and Barber with regard to the July 7, 2009, excessive force claim lodged against these Defendants in their individual capacities be DENIED; (5) 10 motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of Defendant Griffin with respect to all claims contained in the complaint, with the exception of the July 7, 2009, failure to protect claim lodged agains t this Defendant in his individual capacity be DENIED; and (6) This case be set for an evidentiary hearing on the July 7, 2009 excessive force claim against Defendants Terry and Barber and on the July 7, 2009 failure to protect claim against Defendant Griffin. Signed by Honorable Judge Truman M. Hobbs on 6/1/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(cc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT W. LUSTER,
AIS # 162936,
Plaintiff,
v.
KENNETH JONES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACT. NO. 2:09cv832-TMH

ORDER
On April 30, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this case.
(Doc. No. 27.) Upon an independent review of the file in this case and upon
consideration of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, it is
ORDERED that the Recommendation be and is hereby ADOPTED. It is further
ORDERED as follows:
(1)

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 10) with respect to
Plaintiff’s constitutional claims for monetary damages lodged against them
in their official capacities be GRANTED;

(2)

The motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 10) filed on behalf of
Defendants Jones, Giles, Nettles, Perkins, Hampton, Jackson, Johnson,
Benton, and Bennett regarding Plaintiff’s claims against these defendants in
the remaining aspects of their official capacities and in all aspects of their
individual capacities be GRANTED;

(3)

The motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of Defendants Terry and
Barber (Doc. No. 10) with respect to all claims contained in the complaint,
with the exception of the July 7, 2009, excessive force claim lodged against
Defendants Terry and Barber, be GRANTED;

(4)

The motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 10) filed on behalf of
Defendants Terry and Barber with regard to the July 7, 2009, excessive
force claim lodged against these Defendants in their individual capacities be
DENIED;

(5)

The motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of Defendant Griffin
(Doc. No. 10) with respect to all claims contained in the complaint, with the
exception of the July 7, 2009, failure to protect claim lodged against this
Defendant in his individual capacity be DENIED; and

(6)

This case be set for an evidentiary hearing on the July 7, 2009 excessive
force claim against Defendants Terry and Barber and on the July 7, 2009
failure to protect claim against Defendant Griffin.
Done this 1st day of June, 2012

/s/ Truman M. Hobbs
TRUMAN M. HOBBS
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2