Adkins v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al (INMATE 2)
ORDERED that the objection is OVERRULED, and the court ADOPTS the 47 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 3/14/2016. (kh, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
ERNEST A. ADKINS, AIS #189166,
FRANK ALBRIGHT, WARDEN, in his
individual capacity; ANDY FARGUHAR, in )
his individual capacity; and DAVID
FREEMAN, in his individual capacity;
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-37-WHA
This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #47)
and the Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. #52).
Following an independent evaluation and de novo review of the file in this case, the court
finds that the objection is without merit and is due to be overruled.
In the Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge addressed claims based on violations of
the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSHA”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), a claim based on a job change, and a deliberate indifference claim. In his Objection,
the Plaintiff clarifies that his allegation regarding OSHA was an example, that he does not bring
an ADA claim, and that he is aware his job could change at any time. The Plaintiff does argue
that he has established deliberate indifference. The evidence pointed to by the Plaintiff falls
short of showing deliberate indifference to his health or safety because of knowledge of a
substantial risk of serious harm. Accordingly, the objection is OVERRULED, and the court
ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby
ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and this
case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Done this 14th day of March, 2016.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?