Bonds v. Lukima et al

Filing 53

ORDER re-R&R 52 . The court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge's report is due to be and is hereby ADOPTED and the recommendation is ACCEPTED. Dfts' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Dfts Smith, Dixon and Lukima are ORDERED to file an answer within twenty (20) days. Signed by Judge Robert B Propst on 9/25/2013. (AVC)

FILED
2013 Sep-25 PM 02:06
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION

JAMES WILLIS BONDS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CO DONALD LUKIMA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:11-cv-03615-RBP-JHE

ORDER
On August 21, 2013, the magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation, recommending
Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted as to the following claims and the claims be
dismissed with prejudice: (1) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities for
monetary relief; and (2) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claims against Defendants
Smith and Dixon for failing to protect him from allegedly being struck by Defendant Lukima. Doc.
52. The magistrate judge further recommended Defendants' motion for summary judgment be
denied as to the following claims: (1) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against
Defendants Smith, Dixon, and Lukima; (2) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims
against Defendants Smith, Dixon, and Lukima on the basis of qualified immunity; (3) Plaintiff’s
Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendant Smith for failing to protect him from
Defendants Merchant, Dixon, and Lukima’s alleged use of force; and (4) Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendant Smith for failing to protect him from
Defendants Merchant, Dixon, and Lukima’s alleged use of force on the basis of qualified immunity.
Id.

The parties were allowed fourteen (14) days to file written objections to the magistrate
judge’s recommendations. No objections have been filed by any party.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including
the report and recommendation, the Court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge's report is due
to be and is hereby ADOPTED and the magistrate judge's recommendation is ACCEPTED.
Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to the following: (1) Plaintiff's claims
against Defendants in their official capacities for monetary relief; and (2) Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment failure to protect claims against Defendants Smith and Dixon for failing to protect him
from allegedly being struck by Defendant Lukima. Accordingly, these claims are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
The motion is DENIED as to the following: (1) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive
force claims against Defendants Smith, Dixon, and Lukima; (2) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment
excessive force claims against Defendants Smith, Dixon, and Lukima on the basis of qualified
immunity; (3) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claims against Defendant Smith for
failing to protect him from Defendants Merchant, Dixon, and Lukima’s alleged use of force; and (4)
Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claims against Defendant Smith for failing to protect
him from Defendants Merchant, Dixon, and Lukima’s alleged use of force on the basis of qualified
immunity.
Defendants Smith, Dixon, and Lukima are ORDERED to file an answer within twenty (20)
days of the entry date of this order.

2

DONE this 25th day of September, 2013.

ROBERT B. PROPST
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3