Hines v. Bennett

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge James H Hancock on 9/19/2014. (JLC)

FILED
2014 Sep-19 AM 08:59
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION

KELVIN L. HINES,
Plaintiff
vs.
LIEUTENANT WILLIE BENNETT,
et al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 7:13-cv-00644-JHH-HGD

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation on August 13, 2014,
recommending that the defendants’ motions for summary judgment be granted and
this cause be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 27). The plaintiff filed objections to
the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on September 16, 2014. (Doc. 30).
In his objections, the plaintiff merely restates his claims that defendants
Bennett and Bell failed to comply with prison policies and customs which resulted
in another inmate stabbing him.1

(Doc. 30). The plaintiff does not address the

undisputed evidence which shows neither defendants Bennett nor Bell had any prior
1

The plaintiff does not address the magistrate judge’s recommendation that defendants
Thomas and Hutton’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s due process, access to courts,
and retaliation claims be granted and the claims be dismissed.
Page 1 of 2

knowledge that inmate Russell would access the west side of the facility or that
inmate Rusell and the plaintiff were a threat to each other. Because there is no
evidence that defendants Bennett and Bell had subjective knowledge that inmate
Russell was a danger to the plaintiff, his Eighth Amendment claims against these
defendants for failing to protect him from an inmate attack are due to be dismissed.
See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837-39 (1994) (explaining the “subjective
component” of an Eighth Amendment claim).
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court
file, including the report and recommendation and the objections filed by the plaintiff,
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 the defendants are entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, defendants’ motions for summary
judgment are due to be GRANTED and this action is due to be DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. A Final Judgment will be entered.
DATED this the 19thday September, 2014.

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2