Raines v. Caldwell et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 7/10/2018. (KAM)
2018 Jul-10 PM 02:00
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JOHN DOE CALDWELL, et al.,
Case No.: 2:17-cv-00974-RDP-JEO
This case is before the court on Defendants’ Special Report (Doc. # 19), which the court
has construed as a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 20), Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings (Doc. # 29), and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. #
30). On June 8, 2018, the Magistrate Judge directed the parties to file any objections to his
Report and Recommendation within fourteen days. (Doc. # 30 at 12-13). No objections have
After careful consideration of the record in this case and the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation, the court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge. The court
further ACCEPTS the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge that all of Plaintiff’s claims,
including his Eighth Amendment and due process claims, be dismissed with prejudice. In
adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the court observes that Plaintiff’s
factual allegations (which he relies on in opposing Defendants’ summary judgment motion)
present no deprivation of basic sanitation, such as a deprivation of running water, toiletries, or
bathroom access or forced contact with human waste, that rises to the level of an Eighth
Amendment violation. See, e.g., Brooks v. Warden, 800 F.3d 1295, 1303-05 (11th Cir. 2015);
Chandler v. Baird, 926 F.2d 1057, 1063, 1065-66 (11th Cir. 1991). Nor has Plaintiff asserted
that the prison failed to adequately clean his cell or that Defendants denied him access to
cleaning materials. Cf. Quintanilla v. Bryson, 2018 WL 1640140, at *7 (11th Cir. Apr. 5, 2018).
The Report and Recommendation has not analyzed Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings (Doc. # 29). “ ‘Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate where there are no
material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ In
determining whether a party is entitled to judgment on the pleadings, [the court accepts] as true
all material facts alleged in the non-moving party’s pleading, and [the court views] those facts in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Perez v. Wells Fargo N.A., 774 F.3d 1329,
1335 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Cannon v. City of W. Palm Beach, 250 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11th
Here, Defendants’ special report has been deemed to be their answer to the
complaint. (See Doc. # 6 at 4). In the special report, Defendants assert that Plaintiff never
submitted a complaint about his cell conditions to a segregation review board, Defendant Angela
Miree, or Defendant Shannon Caldwell. (Doc. # 19 at 5). Because these facts are accepted as
true for purposes of Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, that motion is due to be
denied for failure to show Defendants’ deliberate indifference towards Plaintiff’s health or
safety. Additionally, Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is due to be denied for the
reasons explained in the Report and Recommendation. For these reasons, the court will deny
Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Doc. # 29).
A separate order in accordance with the Memorandum Opinion will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED this July 10, 2018.
R. DAVID PROCTOR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?