Forester v. Hodges et al

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment. The Court is of the Opinion that the Magistrate Judge's 33 Report is hereby ADOPTED and his 33 Recommendation is ACCEPTED. Accordingly, D efendants' various Motions for Summary Judgment are hereby GRANTED as set out, and the identified claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. In all other respects, the Motions are DENIED. By separate Order, this case will be set for a Final Pretrial Conference. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 8/7/2014. (JLC, )

FILED
2014 Aug-07 PM 01:49
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
JAMES ALLEN FORESTER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
) Case No. 4:12-cv-04094-VEH-JEO
)
SERGEANT BRUCE T. HODGES, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation on July 7, 2014,
recommending that:
(1) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims
against them in their official capacities for monetary damages be
GRANTED and the claims be DISMISSED with prejudice;
(2) Defendants Guthery and Dixon’s motion for summary judgment on
plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims be GRANTED and
the claims be DISMISSED with prejudice;
(3) Defendants Hodge’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s
Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Hodge be
DENIED;
(4) Defendant Hodge’s motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s
Eighth Amendment excessive force claim on the basis of qualified
immunity be DENIED;
(5) Defendants Guthery and Dixon’s motion for summary judgment on
1

plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claims be DENIED;
(6) Defendants Guthery and Dixon’s motion for summary judgment as to
plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claims on the basis of
qualified immunity be DENIED; and
(7) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Fourteenth
Amendment due process claims be GRANTED and the claims be
DISMISSED with prejudice.
(Doc. 33 at 19-20) (emphasis added). Objections to the recommendation were due on
July 21, 2014. None have been 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. The Court EXPRESSLY FINDS that there are no
genuine issues of material fact and that judgment as a matter of law is appropriate as
to all claims, issues, and parties as to which the magistrate recommended granting
summary judgment. Accordingly, defendants’ various motions for summary judgment
are due to be, and hereby are, GRANTED as set out above, and the above-identified
claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. In all other respects, the motions are
DENIED.
By separate order, this case will be set for a final pretrial conference.

2

DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of August, 2014.

VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS
United States District Judge

3