Hollingsworth v. Thomas et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 42

ORDER ADOPTING 40 RECOMMENDATION; it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff's 1 request for injunctive relief is DENIED as moot. 2. The 19 Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Baker is GRANTED to the extent Defendant Baker seeks dismis sal of this case due to Plaintiff's failure to properly exhaust an administrative remedy prior to filing this case. 3. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice against Defendant Baker under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) for Plaintiff's failure to exhaust an administrative remedy. 4. Defendant Thomas's 28 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. 5. Defendant Harris's 28 Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the claim for monetary damages lodged against him in his official capacity is GRANTED as this Defendant is entitled to absolute immunity from this claim, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 5/18/2015. (kh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORTHE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

RICHARD HOLLINGSWORTH, #276 260,
Plaintiff,
vs.
KIM THOMAS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:12-cv-472-WHA
(WO)

ORDER
This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #40),
entered on April 13, 2015. There being no timely objection filed to the Recommendation, and
after a review of the file, the Recommendation is ADOPTED, and it is hereby ORDERED as
follows:
1. Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief (Doc. #1) is DENIED as moot.
2. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Baker (Doc. #19) is GRANTED to the
extent Defendant Baker seeks dismissal of this case due to Plaintiff’s failure to properly exhaust
an administrative remedy prior to filing this case.
3. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice against Defendant Baker under 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(a) for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust an administrative remedy.
4. Defendant Thomas’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #28) is GRANTED.
5. Defendant Harris’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #28) regarding the claim for
monetary damages lodged against him in his official capacity is GRANTED as this Defendant is
entitled to absolute immunity from this claim.

6. Defendant Harris’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #28) regarding Plaintiff’s
Eighth Amendment excessive force claim lodged against him in all aspects of his individual
capacity is DENIED.
7. This case will be set for a jury trial in due course on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim
against Defendant Harris in his individual capacity.
8. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for the purpose of holding a pretrial
hearing at an early date to discuss management of the case and the possibility of consenting to
the jury trial being held before the Magistrate Judge.
DONE this 18th day of May, 2015.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE