Leonard v. Daniels et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 39

ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court that: 1) The 38 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; 2) Plf's request for injunctive relief is DISMISSED as moot; 3) Dfts' 19 Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to Plf's c laim for monetary damages lodged against them in their official capacities is GRANTED as Dfts are entitled to absolute immunity from these claims; 4) The 19 Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of Dfts Daniels, May, and Wilson with respect t o Plf's 12/16/2010, excessive force claim lodged against these dfts in all aspects of their individual capacities is DENIED; 5) The 19 Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of Dfts May and Wilson with respect to Plf's 12/16/2010, fa ilure to protect claim lodged against these dfts in all aspects of their individual capacities is DENIED; and 6) The 19 Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of Dft Daniels with respect to Plf's 12/16/2010, failure to protect claim lodge d against this dft in all aspects of his individual capacity is GRANTED; The Court will set this case for trial on Plf's 12/16/2010, excessive force claim against Dfts Daniels, May, and Wilson, and on Plf's 12/16/2010, failure to protect claim against Dfts May and Wilson. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 1/13/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist) (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
MARQUS A. LEONARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
LEEPOSEY DANIELS, Warden, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:11-cv-185-MEF

ORDER
On December 5, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. #38) in
this case to which no timely objections have been filed. Upon an independent review of the
file in this case and upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, it
is the
ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court that:
1. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is DISMISSED as moot;
3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 19) with respect to Plaintiff’s claim
for monetary damages lodged against them in their official capacities is GRANTED as Defendants
are entitled to absolute immunity from these claims;
4. The motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of Defendants Daniels, May, and
Wilson (Doc. No. 19) with respect to Plaintiff’s December 16, 2010, excessive force claim lodged
against these defendants in all aspects of their individual capacities is DENIED;
5. The motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of Defendants May and Wilson

(Doc. No. 19) with respect to Plaintiff’s December 16, 2010, failure to protect claim lodged
against these defendants in all aspects of their individual capacities is DENIED; and
6. The motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of Defendant Daniels (Doc. No. 19)
with respect to Plaintiff’s December 16, 2010, failure to protect claim lodged against this defendant
in all aspects of his individual capacity is GRANTED.
The Court will set this case for trial on Plaintiff’s December 16, 2010, excessive force claim
against Defendants Daniels, May, and Wilson, and on Plaintiff’s December 16, 2010, failure to
protect claim against Defendants May and Wilson.

DONE this the 13th day of January, 2014.

/s/ Mark E. Fuller
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE