Marbury v. Estes et al

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 05/12/2017. (KBB)

FILED
2017 May-12 AM 11:15
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
MITCHELL MARBURY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WARDEN DeWAYNE ESTES, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)

Civil Action Number
4:16-cv-01152-AKK-JHE

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mitchell Marbury filed this action alleging that Warden DeWayne Estes and
Correctional Officer Beverly Warren violated his constitutional rights while he was
incarcerated at St. Clair Correctional Facility.

See generally doc. 1.

The

magistrate judge filed a report on May 1, 2017, construing defendants’ special
report as a motion for summary judgment and further recommending that the
motion be granted. Doc. 22. The court advised the parties of their right to file
specific written objections within fourteen days. Id. at 19–20. Because Marbury
filed objections only to the magistrate judge’s finding that defendants were not
deliberately indifferent to a serious risk of harm to Marbury, see doc. 23 at 1–2, the
court reviews, de novo, only that aspect of the magistrate judge’s report. See
Kohser v. Protective Life Corp., 649 F. App’x 774, 777 (11th Cir. 2016) (citing 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)) (“The district court must make a de novo determination of those

portions of [the] magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to which an
objection is made.”); id. (“[W]here a litigant fails to offer specific objections to a
magistrate judge’s factual findings, there is no requirement of de novo review.”).
Relevant here, Marbury alleges that Warden Estes and Officer Warren
violated his Eighth Amendment rights when they allowed other inmates to assault
him, despite Marbury informing defendants that he desired transfer to a more
“sociable” cellblock and that another, unidentified inmate “was out to do harm to
[him].” See doc. 1 at 10. The magistrate judge found no constitutional violation,
because defendants had no specific information regarding any alleged threat to
Marbury’s safety.

See doc. 22 at 11 (“While the plaintiff mentioned [to

defendants] that he had witnessed inmate on inmate violence and that his lack of
gang affiliation made him fear for his own health and safety, he did not identify
any risk specific enough that Warden Estes should have subjectively known that
the plaintiff faced a substantial risk of danger.”), and 12 (“[T]he plaintiff has failed
to show a ‘particularized threat or fear felt’ by the inmate sufficiently
communicated to defendant Warren such that she should have been subjectively
aware of a substantial risk of harm to the plaintiff.”). The court is not persuaded
by Marbury’s contentions that inmate-on-inmate violence that occurred “a year
prior [to], and a year after” his departure from St. Clair Correctional Facility put
defendants on notice of the violence and the “need to correct the alleged
2

deprivation,” or that “[n]o Guards [were] assigned to P/Q-block, unit hallway or
inside the living [a]rea,” doc. 23 at 2, because these contentions, if true, do not
show that Warden Estes and Officer Warren had specific notice of an alleged threat
to Marbury’s safety in April 2016, when the assault occurred.

Accordingly,

Marbury’s objections are OVERRULED.
For these reasons, the court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s
report is due to be ADOPTED, and his recommendation ACCEPTED.
Consequently, defendant’s motion for summary judgment, doc. 18, is due to be
granted, and Marbury’s claims dismissed. The court will contemporaneously enter
an order of final judgment in accordance with the foregoing.
DONE the 12th day of May, 2017.

_________________________________
ABDUL K. KALLON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3