Coats v. Farmer et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 7/7/2015. (JLC)
2015 Jul-07 AM 09:39
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MARTY FARMER, SHIRLEY
SMITH, and BECKY COLLEY
Case No.: 4:12-cv-1073-VEH-TMP
This is a pro se prisoner case brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. According
to his amended complaint, on August 16, 2011, Officers Marty Farmer, Shirley Smith,
and Becky Colley subjected him to excessive force while he was incarcerated at the
St. Clair County Jail.1
The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation on June 17, 2015,
recommending that the special report filed by these defendants be construed as a
motion for summary judgment and, as such, that it be granted and the claims against
all of them be “DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE due to plaintiff’s failure to
exhaust the administrative remedies available to him.” (Doc. 27 at p. 17)(emphasis
in original). All parties were specifically notified of their respective rights to object
Plaintiff also alleged claims for false imprisonment and denial of equal protection, but
those claims were dismissed by the court on April 22, 2014. See Doc. 13.
to that recommendation and the time limit for doing so. Doc. 27 at pp. 17-18.
However, no objections were filed.
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 his
recommendation is ACCEPTED as follows. The Court EXPRESSLY FINDS that
plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that dismissal without
prejudice is therefore appropriate.2 An appropriate order will be entered separately.
DONE this the 7th day of July, 2015.
VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS
United States District Judge
Accordingly, the undersigned does not reach the merits of plaintiff’s excessive force and
failure to provide adequate medical care claims. However, were I to do so, I would have to point
out that I disagree with the portion of the R&R that states that keeping handcuffs on a prisoner
inside a holding cell for 48 hours is not “an objectively serious deprivation.” (R&R, doc. 27 at p.
15). I agree, however, that there is no evidence that these defendants violated any policy by not
removing plaintiff’s handcuffs, or that they knew that this plaintiff would likely remain in
handcuffs for the next 48 hours. Further, plaintiff does not allege that he was not checked on or
did not receive food during this 48 hour period (and his handcuffs would have been obvious to
any guard who interacted with him); yet he does not complain that these defendants interacted
with him during this period but failed or refused to take off his handcuffs. So, I would agree on
the merits that his complaints related to the handcuffs are due to be dismissed as to these
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?