Hosey v. Williams (INMATE 1)

Filing 47

ORDER OVERRULING plf's 45 Objections; ADOPTING 44 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge; ORDERING as follows: (1) def's 16 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; (2) Judgment is GRANTED in favor of the def, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice; (3) costs are taxed against the plf. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 8/19/15. (djy, )

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

ERIC HOSEY-BEY, #193503,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
SGT. ALTHEA WILLIAMS,
Defendant.

CASE NO. 2:12-cv-959-WHA

ORDER
This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #44),
entered on July 30, 2015, together with the Objection of the Plaintiff (Doc. #45), filed on August
13, 2015. Following an independent evaluation and de novo review of the file in this case, the
court finds the objection to be without merit.
The Plaintiff contends that on October 14, 2012, the Defendant deprived him of his First
Amendment right to practice his religion because she “ordered that the Sunday school service of
the Moorish Science Temple of America (MSTA) be closed down after only 10 to 13 minutes of
class [because] she was short of officers[.]” and discriminated against him in violation of his
right to equal protection because later in the same evening she allowed the Christians to hold
their service.
The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the record is devoid of evidence
that the Defendant acted in an intentionally discriminatory manner, but that the record establishes
that the Defendant closed the chapel solely because she lacked sufficient staff to provide security
for the chapel at the time the MSTA services was being conducted, a situation which had been

resolved by the time the Christian service began, i.e., an officer became available to provide
security for the chapel. The objection does nothing to undermine the finding that, therefore, the
Plaintiff has not created a genuine dispute of fact as to whether religion or some other
constitutionally impermissible fact constituted a motivating factor in the Defendant’s decision to
close the chapel during the MSTA service and reopen it for the Christian service.
Therefore, for the reasons stated, the Plaintiff’s objection is OVERRULED, the court
ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
2. Judgment is GRANTED in favor of the Defendant, and this case is DISMISSED with
prejudice.
3. Costs are taxed against the Plaintiff.
DONE this 19th day of August, 2015.

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