McGraw v. Temple et al (INMATE2)

Filing 50

ORDERED that the 44 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED; further ORDERED as follows: 1) Plf's request for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief (Doc. 17 ) is DISMISSED as moot; 2) Plf's request that criminal ch arges be filed against Dft Temple is DISMISSED under 28 USC § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); 3) Plf's challenge to the 9/19/2011, disciplinary proceedings is DISMISSED without prejudice in accordance with the directives of 28 USC § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii ); 4) Dfts' 23 motion for summary judgment with respect to Plf's claim for monetary damages lodged against them in their official capacities is GRANTED as Dfts are entitled to absolute immunity from these claims; 5) The 23 motion for su mmary judgment filed on behalf of Dfts Ellington, Loman, and Napier is GRANTED; 6) The 23 motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of Dft Temple regarding Plf's 9/13/2011, excessive force claim lodged against this dft in all aspects of his individual capacity is DENIED; 7) The 23 motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of Dft Brown regarding Plf's claim that this dft failed to protect him from Officer Temple's use of excessive force on 9/13/2011, is DENIED in all aspect s of his individual capacity; 8) This case shall be set for a set for an evidentiary hearing on Plf's excessive force claim against Dft Temple and his failure to protect claim against Dft Brown; and 9) This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for additional proceedings. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 12/3/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist) (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
SHAWN DEWAYNE MCGRAW,
#169 528,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFERY TEMPLE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-cv-1087-WHA
)
)
)
)

ORDER
The Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation (Doc. 44) in this case to which
no timely objections have been filed. After a review of the Recommendation, and after
an independent review of the entire record, the court finds that the Recommendation
should be adopted. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is hereby
ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED as follows:
1.

Plaintiff’s request for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief (Doc. 17)

is DISMISSED as moot;
2.

Plaintiff’s request that criminal charges be filed against Defendant Temple

is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i);
3.

Plaintiff’s challenge to the September 19, 2011, disciplinary proceedings is

DISMISSED without prejudice in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii);

4.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 23) 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;
5.

The motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of Defendants Ellington,

Loman, and Napier (Doc. 23) is GRANTED;
6.

The motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of Defendant Temple

(Doc. 23) regarding Plaintiff’s September 13, 2011, excessive force claim lodged against
this defendant in all aspects of his individual capacity is DENIED;
7.

The motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of Defendant Brown

(Doc. 23) regarding Plaintiff’s claim that this defendant failed to protect him from Officer
Temple’s use of excessive force on September 13, 2011, is DENIED in all aspects of his
individual capacity;
8.

This case shall be set for a set for an evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff’s

excessive force claim against Defendant Temple and his failure to protect claim against
Defendant Brown; and
9.

This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for additional

proceedings.
Done this 3rd day of December, 2014.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2