Dalton v. Stancil et al (INMATE1)

Filing 111

ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court that: 1) The plf's 110 objections to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are overruled; 2) The 107 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted; 3) That the dfts' motions for summary judgment are GRANTED and that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 3/31/2014. (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER DALTON, #264073,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHAD STANCIL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:10-cv-843-MEF
WO

ORDER
This case involves a police shooting. While handcuffed, Plaintiff Christopher Dalton
(“Plaintiff”) pulled a handgun from his pocket and fired at least two times at law enforcement
officers, hitting one officer. One officer returned fire, wounding Plaintiff. It is against this
factual backdrop that Plaintiff brings an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the officers,
claiming that they violated his rights under the Fourth and Eighth Amendments to the United
States Constitution because they used excessive force against him and because they subjected
him to an unlawful arrest. The officers argued that they are entitled to qualified immunity
from Plaintiff’s claims. On February 21, 2014, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and
Recommendation, finding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and that
Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed on summary judgment.
On March 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation. Out of Plaintiff’s many objections, the Court feels it necessary to
specifically address Plaintiff’s particular objection that a genuine dispute of material fact

exists with respect to the amount of times that he shot at the officers. Plaintiff claims he shot
at the officers only twice, while one of the officers testified that Plaintiff shot at least four
times. Plaintiff claims that this dispute precludes summary judgment. Plaintiff is sorely
mistaken. Indeed, through this objection, Plaintiff admits that he opened fired on the
officers at least two times. This is certainly sufficient in the Court’s eyes to justify the
officers returning fire on Plaintiff.
Based on the foregoing, and after an independent review of the file, it is the ORDER,
JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court that:
1. The plaintiff’s objections (Doc. #110) to the Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge filed on March 25, 2014 are overruled;
2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #107) entered on February
21, 2014 is adopted;
3. That the defendants’ motions for summary judgment are GRANTED and that this
case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
st

DONE this the 31 day of March, 2014.

/s/ Mark E. Fuller
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE