Matthews v. Hayman, et al (INMATE 1)

Filing 98

ORDERED as follows: 1) The objections of the Plf and the Dfts are OVERRULED; 2) The court ADOPTS the 90 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; 3) Dfts' Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to the Plf's claims for monetary damages lod ged against them in their official capacities is GRANTED, and these claims are DISMISSED with prejudice, as the Dfts are entitled to absolute immunity against monetary damages; 4) The Dfts' Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Plf's claim for deliberate indifference to his medical needs is GRANTED, and this claim is DISMISSED with prejudice; 5) The Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of the Dfts Dennis Meeks, Preston Hughes, and David Anderson with respect to the remaining cla ims presented against these Dfts in all aspects of their individual capacities is GRANTED; 6) The Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of the Dfts Clarence Haymons and Bill Blue with respect to the Plf's excessive force and failure to pro tect claims lodged against them in their individual capacities is DENIED; This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for an evidentiary hearing on the Plf's surviving claims of excessive force and failure to protect lodged against Dfts Haymons and Bill Blue, to be followed by a Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 9/15/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist) (wcl, )

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

COREY MATTHEWS, # 168496,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CLARENCE HAYMONS, DENNIS MEEKS, )
PRESTON HUGHES, BILL BLUE, and
)
DAVID ANDERSON,
)
)
Defendants.
)

CASE NO. 2:12-cv-870-WHA
(WO)

ORDER
This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #90),
entered on August 12, 2015, the Objection of Defendants (Doc. #91), and the Objection of the
Plaintiff (Doc. #92). The court has conducted an independent evaluation and de novo review of
the file in this case, and having done so, finds both objections to be without merit.
The Defendants Haymons and Blue, in their objection, merely provide a recitation of
their version of the facts and argue that under this version, the disputed issue is merely “over the
reasonableness of a particular use of force or the existence of arguably superior alternatives.”
(Doc. #91, p.3). This objection is not well-taken, as the Defendants rely solely on their version
of the facts to support this argument, whereas well-settled law requires that at this stage of the
proceedings the court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. In addition,
the court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that, when viewing the facts most favorable to
Matthews, “disputed issues of material fact exist regarding the need for the use of force, the

1

nature of the force used and whether the defendants acted ‘maliciously and sadistically’ to cause
harm.” (Rec. at 15).
As to the Plaintiff’s objection, he merely sought the opportunity to file a response to a
Supplemental Report filed by the Defendants addressing his excessive force/failure to protect
claims. He was granted this opportunity by the Magistrate Judge and filed a response on
September 4, 2015. The response has no impact on the findings set forth in the
Recommendation, and the court finds his objection to be without merit.
For the reasons set out above, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. The objections of the Plaintiff and the Defendants are OVERRULED.
2. The court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
3. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to the Plaintiff’s claims for
monetary damages lodged against them in their official capacities is GRANTED, and these
claims are DISMISSED with prejudice, as the Defendants are entitled to absolute immunity
against monetary damages.
4. The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Plaintiff’s claim for
deliberate indifference to his medical needs is GRANTED, and this claim is DISMISSED with
prejudice.
5. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of the Defendants Dennis Meeks,
Preston Hughes, and David Anderson with respect to the remaining claims presented against
these Defendants in all aspects of their individual capacities is GRANTED.
6. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of the Defendants Clarence
Haymons and Bill Blue with respect to the Plaintiff’s excessive force and failure to protect
claims lodged against them in their individual capacities is DENIED.

2

This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for an evidentiary hearing on the
Plaintiff’s surviving claims of excessive force and failure to protect lodged against Defendants
Haymons and Bill Blue, to be followed by a Report and Recommendation.
DONE this 15th day of September, 2015.

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

3