Posey v. Thomas et al (INMATE 1)

Filing 78

ORDERED that the 77 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; further ORDERED that: 1) Plf's request for injunctive relief is DENIED as moot or without merit; 2) Dfts' motion for summary judgment with respect to the claims for mo netary damages lodged against them in their official capacities is GRANTED as all Dfts are entitled to absolute immunity from these claims; 3) The motion for summary filed on behalf of Dfts Thomas, Albright, Napier, Riley, and Nunn in their individua l capacities is GRANTED; 4) The motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of Dfts Harris and Hamilton with respect to Plf's Eighth Amendment excessive force and failure to protect claims and his state law claims of assault, battery, and intent ional infliction of emotional distress lodged against Dfts Harris and Hamilton in their individual capacities is DENIED; 5) The motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of Dfts Harris and Hamilton regarding all claims contained in the complaint, w ith the exception of Plf's Eighth Amendment excessive force and failure to protect claims and the state tort claims of assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, in their individual capacities is GRANTED; 6) By separate Order, this case shall be set for a jury trial on Plf's excessive force, failure to protect, assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against Dfts Harris and Hamilton in their individual capacities. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 2/24/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist) (wcl, )

Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION CLARK L. POSEY, JR., #266851, v. KIM THOMAS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2:13-CV-943-WKW (WO) ORDER On January 28, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this case to which no objections have been filed. (Doc. No. 77). Upon an independent review of the file and upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is DENIED as moot or without merit. 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the claims for monetary damages lodged against them in their official capacities is GRANTED as all Defendants are entitled to absolute immunity from these claims. 3. The motion for summary filed on behalf of Defendants Thomas, Albright, Napier, Riley, and Nunn in their individual capacities is GRANTED. 4. The motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of Defendants Harris and Hamilton with respect to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force and failure to protect claims and his state law claims of assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress lodged against Defendants Harris and Hamilton in their individual capacities is DENIED. 5. The motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of Defendants Harris and Hamilton regarding all claims contained in the complaint, with the exception of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force and failure to protect claims and the state tort claims of assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, in their individual capacities is GRANTED. 6. By separate Order, this case shall be set for a jury trial on Plaintiff’s excessive force, failure to protect, assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against Defendants Harris and Hamilton in their individual capacities. DONE this 24th day of February, 2016. /s/ W. Keith Watkins CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?