Chatman v. Roy et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - The magistrate judge's report is ADOPTED and the recommendations are ACCEPTED. The court ORDERS the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to the 14th Amendment excessive force claims, the eighth amendment excessive force claims based on allegations Roysprayed Chatman's cell with a fire extinguisher and Jenkins used Sabre Red Cellbuster, and any constitutional claim based on Roy's refusal to allow Chatman to use the phon e. These claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED with respect to the eighth amendment excessive force claims based on Roy's alleged use of the fire extinguisher to spray Chatman in the face and Jenkins' alleged assault on Chatman in the hallway by slapping him and spaying a chemical agent in his face. These claims areREFERRED to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 9/23/2019. (AFS)

FILED
2019 Sep-23 PM 01:40
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
STANLEY BRENT CHATMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
COI KENNEDY D. ROY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action Number
2:17-cv-01952-AKK-SGC

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The magistrate judge entered a report on August 28, 2019, recommending the
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part.
Doc. 27. The magistrate judge recommended the motion be granted with respect to
Stanley Brent Chatman’s (1) Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claims against
Officer Kennedy Roy and Lieutenant Mohammad Jenkins, (2) Eighth Amendment
excessive force claims based on allegations Roy sprayed a fire extinguisher into
Chatman’s cell and Jenkins used Sabre Red Cell buster, and (3) any constitutional
claim based on Roy’s refusal to allow Chatman to use the phone. Id. at 17. The
magistrate judge recommended the motion be denied with respect to Chatman’s
Eighth Amendment excessive force claims regarding Roy allegedly spraying
Chatman in the face with a fire extinguisher and Jenkins allegedly slapping Chatman
and spraying him with a chemical agent in the hallway. Id. at 17-18. Although the

parties were advised of their right to file specific written objections within fourteen
days, no objections have been received by the court.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the
court file, including the report and recommendation, the magistrate judge’s report is
ADOPTED and the recommendations are ACCEPTED. Accordingly, the court
ORDERS that the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with
respect to (1) the Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claims against Roy and
Jenkins, (2) the Eighth Amendment excessive force claims based on allegations Roy
sprayed Chatman’s cell with a fire extinguisher and Jenkins used Sabre Red Cell
buster, and (3) any constitutional claim based on Roy’s refusal to allow Chatman to
use the phone. These claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED with respect to the Eighth
Amendment excessive force claims based on Roy’s alleged use of a fire extinguisher
to spray Chatman in the face and Jenkins’ alleged assault on Chatman in the hallway
by slapping him and spraying a chemical agent in his face. These claims are
REFERRED to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
DONE the 23rd day of September, 2019.

_________________________________
ABDUL K. KALLON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2