Williams v. Hale et al

Filing 57

MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 8/30/16. (SAC )

FILED
2016 Aug-30 AM 09:17
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL DAVIS WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHERIFF MIKE HALE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 2:14-cv-1411-KOB-TMP
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this § 1983 action, the magistrate judge filed a report and
recommendation on May 23, 2016 (doc. 55), recommending that the court deny the
plaintiff’s motion to consolidate (doc. 54 at 7-8) and grant the defendants’ motion
for summary judgment (doc. 51). The plaintiff filed objections to the report and
recommendation on June 2, 2016. (Doc. 56).
In his objections, the plaintiff claims that the magistrate judge erred in
finding that his claims are barred by the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine because
the defendants are “in conspiracy with the ‘BBA’ and the Birmingham Parking
Authority, et al. and the City of Birmingham[.] . . .” (Doc. 56 at 3). The plaintiff
argues that the “BBA” employees are not “corporate employees of the state,” and
therefore, the conspiracy is not within the same entity and thus, not barred by the
intracorporate doctrine. However, the plaintiff’s argument is without merit.

The plaintiff failed to allege in his complaint (doc. 11) or his amended
complaint (doc. 11, motion granted by the court in doc. 28) that the Jefferson
County Jail Deputies he named conspired with anyone outside the Jail.

See

Rehberg v. Paulk, 611 F.3d 828, 854 (11th Cir. 2010). In fact, the only people the
plaintiff named as defendants and alleged were involved in the conspiracy in this
case were Jefferson County Jail Deputies. The court agrees with the magistrate
judge that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine bars the plaintiff’s claims and
OVERRULES his objections.
The plaintiff further objects to the magistrate judge’s recommendation to
deny his motion to consolidate, but he gives no valid grounds for his objection.
Instead, the plaintiff spouts conclusory nonsense by stating that “it is ‘evident’”
that the magistrate judge “is totally delusional, a racist—and maybe even ‘friends’
of members of the BBA and some of the Defendants listed within the other two
consolidated cases.” Such conclusory statements are baseless and provide the
court with no meaningful objection. Thus, the court overrules all of the plaintiff’s
objections.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the
court file, including the report and recommendation and the plaintiff’s objections,
the court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report and ACCEPTS his
recommendations. The court finds that the plaintiff’s motion to consolidate is due
2

to be denied; that no genuine issues of material facts exist; and that the defendants’
motion for summary judgment is due to be granted.
The court will enter a separate Final Order.
DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of August, 2016.

____________________________________
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3