Barley v. Jamison et al (INMATE1)

Filing 163

ORDER as follows: 1. Mr. Barley's 162 Objection is OVERRULED. 2. The 158 Recommendation is ADOPTED. 3. The 11 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendants with respect to claims for monetary damages lodged against them in their official capacities as Defendants are entitled to absolute immunity from these claims. 4. Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Kim Thomas as he is sued only in his official capacity. 5. The motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendants Jamison, Allen, W. Thomas, Moore, McKee, Lucas, and Waver in their individual capacities. 6. The supplemental state claims are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and (d). 7. Costs are taxed against Plaintiff. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 1/16/2014. (dmn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
DANIEL M. BARLEY, #260262,
Plaintiff,
v.
LEROY JAMISON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:10-CV-1036-W

ORDER
On November 7, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this
case. (Doc. # 158.) On January 7, 2014, Plaintiff Daniel M. Barley (“Barley”)
filed an objection. (Doc. #162.) The court has conducted a de novo review of
those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1.

Mr. Barley’s objection (Doc. # 162) is OVERRULED.

2.

The Recommendation (Doc. # 158) is ADOPTED.

3.

The motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of

Defendants with respect to claims for monetary damages lodged against them in
their official capacities as Defendants are entitled to absolute immunity from these
claims.

4.

Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Kim Thomas as he is

sued only in his official capacity.
5.

The motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of

Defendants Jamison, Allen, W. Thomas, Moore, McKee, Lucas, and Waver in
their individual capacities.
6.

The supplemental state claims are DISMISSED without prejudice

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and (d).
7.

Costs are taxed against Plaintiff.

DONE this 16th day of January, 2014.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2