Taylor v. Dunn et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER re 41 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; for reasons stated within the court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge's report is due to be ADOPTED, and his recommendation ACCEPTED; Consequently, Taylor's claims against COI Kendricks, COI McQueen, and Captain Graham are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 07/25/2017. (KBB)
2017 Jul-26 AM 08:23
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CHARLES RAY TAYLOR,
COI KENDRICKS, et al.,
Civil Action Number
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Charles Ray Taylor, a state prisoner incarcerated at St. Clair Correctional
Facility, filed this action alleging that COI Kendricks, COI McQueen, and Captain
Graham exhibited deliberate indifference to his safety when they failed to prevent
two other inmates from stabbing Taylor after a verbal altercation, and that Captain
Graham violated his constitutional rights by failing to subsequently investigate the
assault. See generally doc. 9. 1 The magistrate judge filed a report on June 20,
2017, recommending that this court dismiss each of Taylor’s claims against
Kendricks, McQueen, and Graham for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. See doc. 41 at 11–12 (“[Taylor] does not allege that he informed
Kendricks and McQueen of the identity of the inmate[s] with whom he engaged in
the verbal altercation on June 25, 2015, prior to the assault. Nor does [Taylor]
allege he informed Kendricks and McQueen of a specific threat to him based on
Taylor also named two “John Doe[s]” as defendants. See doc. 9 at 1.
the verbal altercation.”), 14 (“[Taylor] does not allege that he notified defendant
Graham that he was in danger prior to the assault . . . .”), & 15 (“Neither does
[Taylor] dispute that defendant Graham visited [Taylor] on several occasions in an
attempt to get [Taylor] to identify the inmates who stabbed him, but [Taylor] told
defendant Graham that he could not identify the inmates because he would be
labeled a ‘snitch.’”). The magistrate judge advised the parties of their right to file
specific written objections within fourteen days. Id. at 25–26. After the court
granted him an extension, see docs. 42; 43, Taylor filed objections, see doc. 44.
The court has reviewed Taylor’s submission, in which he generally asserts
that Kendricks and “McGuire”2 had notice of a risk to Taylor’s safety prior to the
assault and that factual disputes render summary judgment inappropriate. See, e.g.,
doc. 44 at 2 (Taylor asserts that he “ma[d]e known to defendant Kendricks and
defendant Mcguire of the [verbal] altercation”); id. (“[T]his courts summary
judgment facts, are clearly in dispute, as the plaintiff has pointed this honorable
court to several discrepancies, as to the facts of this case.”); id. at 3 (“The
defendants [sole] defense, is that they had no knowledge and were working another
post at the time of th[e] assault, the [plaintiff] has disputed these incorrect
allegations . . . .”) & 4 (“[T]he plaintiff made it clearly known to Officer Kendricks
and officer Mcguire that the plaintiffs safety was in danger . . . .”). Unfortunately
Although Taylor named “Mr. McQueen, COI” in his amended complaint, doc. 9, he
refers to this defendant as COI “McGuire” in his objections submission.
for Taylor, these assertions do not address the magistrate judge’s finding that,
although Taylor had informed Kendricks and McQueen that “something was not
right” and requested that these officers “keep an eye” on him, see doc. 41 at 5, such
general notice would not alert the officers to a substantial risk of serious harm that
constituted a “strong likelihood, rather than a mere possibility,” Edwards v.
Gilbert, 867 F.2d 1271, 1276 (11th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, these objections are
For these reasons, the court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s
report is due to be ADOPTED, and his recommendation ACCEPTED.
Consequently, Taylor’s claims against COI Kendricks, COI McQueen, and Captain
Graham are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
DONE the 25th day of July, 2017.
ABDUL K. KALLON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Taylor does not raise any specific objections to the dismissal of his claims against
Captain Graham. See doc. 44 at 5. See also Kohser v. Protective Life Corp., 649 F. App’x 774,
777 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)) (“[W]here a litigant fails to offer specific
objections to a magistrate judge’s factual findings, there is no requirement of de novo review.”).
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?