Williams v. Hale et al

Filing 57

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

Download PDF
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

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?