Spencer v. Edmonds et al
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The court ADOPTS the magistrate judge's report and ACCEPTS his recommendation. The court finds that no genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim agai nst defendant Bolling; GRANTS defendant Bolling's motion for summary judgment and ENTERS SUMMARY JUDGMENT in favor of defendant Bolling and against the plaintiff. The court DENIES Edmonds' motion for summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact exists regarding plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against defendant Edmonds. This matter is REFERRED to the magistrate judge for further proceedings against defendant Edmonds. Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 3/21/18. (SAC )
FILED
2018 Mar-21 AM 09:09
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANTONIO SPENCER,
Plaintiff,
v.
AKEEM D. EDMONDS, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:16-cv-01733-KOB-HNJ
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The magistrate judge filed a report on January 26, 2018, recommending the
court DENY defendant Edmonds= motion for summary judgment and GRANT
defendant Bolling=s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment excessive force claims against them. The magistrate judge further
recommended that the court REFER the Eighth Amendment excessive force claim
against defendant Edmonds to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
Defendant Edmonds filed objections to the report and recommendation on February
9, 2018. (Doc. 18).
Defendant Edmonds argues that summary judgment must be granted in his
favor because he Aunequivocally denies@ the plaintiff=s allegations, and Athe body
chart, Use of Force Report, and witness affidavits@ support his Aversion of events.@
(Id. at 2). He points out the plaintiff did not respond to the special report and
declares the A[p]laintiff has produced nothing, other than his own [self-serving]
conclusory allegations@ as Aproof to support his outrageous allegations.@ (Id.).
Defendant Edmonds= objections are OVERRULED. The plaintiff=s sworn
complaint contains Aspecific facts@ the court must consider in opposition to summary
judgment. (Doc. 1 at 8-11); see Caldwell v. Warden, FCI Talladega, 748 F.3d
1090, 1098 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Perry v. Thompson, 786 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th
Cir. 1986)).
Those facts create a genuine dispute regarding the elements of
plaintiff=s excessive force claim against Edmonds. In addition, the special report
contains the plaintiff=s and two other inmates= testimony regarding the excessive
force incident. (Doc. 14-2 at 9-11, 14-15). That testimony, presented under oath
and based on personal observation, depicts far more than conclusory facts
supporting the plaintiff=s version of events.
AA non-conclusory affidavit which complies with Rule 56 can create a
genuine dispute concerning an issue of material fact, even if it is self-serving and/or
uncorroborated.@ United States v. Stein, No. 16-10914, --- F. 3d ---, ----2018 WL
635960, at *5 (11th Cir. Jan. 31, 2018) (en banc). The plaintiff=s evidence, as
described in the magistrate judge=s report, complies with Rule 56 and creates a
genuine dispute of material fact as to his excessive force claim against defendant
Edmonds. Thus, the self-serving and/or uncorroborated nature of the evidence does
not matter.
2
Further, Ain ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party=s
evidence >is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in [that
party=s] favor.@ Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 552 (1999) (quoting Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)). ACredibility determinations, the
weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are
jury functions, not those of a judge.@ Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the
court file, including the report and recommendation and defendant Edmonds’
objections, the court hereby ADOPTS the magistrate judge=s report and ACCEPTS
his recommendation. The court finds that no genuine issues of material fact exist
regarding the plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against defendant
Bolling; GRANTS defendant Bolling=s motion for summary judgment and ENTERS
SUMMARY JUDGMENT in favor of defendant Bolling and against the plaintiff.
The court DENIES Edmonds= motion for summary judgment because genuine
issues of material fact exists regarding plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive
force claim against defendant Edmonds.
This matter is REFERRED to the
magistrate judge for further proceedings against defendant Edmonds.
DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of March, 2018.
____________________________________
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?