Jacoby v. Carter et al

Filing 95

ORDER that the Court hereby Adopts the 93 Magistrate Judge's Report and Accepts his Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court dismisses plaintiff Brent Jacoby's claims against the defendants in their official capacities, Dismisses as Moot Mr . Jacoby's claims for injunctive relief. GRANTS defendants' Carter, Estes, Dunn, Truitt, Jones, Malone, and Guthery's 61 Motion for Summary Judgment. DENIES defendants' Specks, Graham, Gaines, and Tarrant Payne's 61 Motio n for Summary Judgment on Mr. Jacoby's failure to protect and prison conditions claims. GRANTING defendants Coogan and Richard Paynes 62 Motion for Summary Judgment. GRANTING defendants Wilson and Hambys 65 Motion for Summary Judgment as set out herein. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 7/11/2017. (JLC)

FILED
2017 Jul-11 PM 03:56
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
BRENT JACOBY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
CARTER, Warden, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.: 4:16-cv-00728-MHH-TMP

ORDER
The magistrate judge entered a report on May 1, 2017 in which he
recommended that the Court:
• Dismiss all claims against the defendants in their official capacities;
• Dismiss as moot plaintiff Brent Jacoby’s claims for injunctive relief;
• Grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to defendants Carter,
Estes, Dunn, Truitt, Jones, Malone, and Guthery;
• Deny the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to defendants
Specks, Graham, Gaines, and Tarrant Payne on Mr. Jacoby’s failure to
protect and prison condition claims;
• Grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to defendants
Coogan and Richard Payne; and

• Grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to defendants
Wilson and Hamby.
(Doc. 93, pp. 60-61). The magistrate judge advised the parties of their right to file
specific written objections within fourteen days. (Doc. 91, pp. 61-62). To date, no
party has filed objections to the report and recommendation.
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A
district court reviews legal conclusions in a report de novo and reviews for plain
error factual findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d
776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749
(11th Cir. 1988); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).1
Having reviewed the record and the report and recommendation, the Court
finds no misstatements of law in the report and no plain error in the magistrate
judge’s description of the relevant facts.

Therefore, the Court adopts the

magistrate judge’s report and accepts his recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court:
1. Dismisses Mr. Jacoby’s claims against the defendants in their official
capacities;
1

When a party objects to a report in which a magistrate judge recommends dismissal of a claim,
a district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B)(C).
2

2. Dismisses as moot Mr. Jacoby’s claims for injunctive relief;
3. Grants the prison defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 61) as
to defendants Carter, Estes, Dunn, Truitt, Jones, Malone, and Guthery;
4. Denies the prison defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 61) as
to defendants Specks, Graham, Gaines, and Tarrant Payne on Mr. Jacoby’s failure
to protect and prison conditions claims;
5. Grants defendants Coogan and Richard Payne’s motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 62); and
6. Grants defendants Wilson and Hamby’s motion for summary judgment
(Doc. 65).
The Court will enter a separate order to resolve Mr. Jacoby’s pending
motion to appoint counsel.
DONE and ORDERED this July 11, 2017.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3