Bonner v. Holifield

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 2/27/2015. (KEK)

FILED
2015 Feb-27 PM 04:39
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION
ARTHUR LEE BONNER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANTHONY D. HOLIFIELD, et. al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 7:13-cv-00863-MHH-SGC
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On January 14, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a report in which she
recommended that the Court grant Officer Holifield’s motion for summary
judgment and dismiss without prejudice Mr. Bonner’s claim against Officer
Wright.

(Doc. 24 at 8).

Mr. Bonner has not objected to the report and

recommendation.
When a party does not object to a report and recommendation, the Court
reviews the report for clear error. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784
(11th Cir. 2006). The 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).
Having carefully reviewed all of the materials in the court file, including the
complaint, the report and recommendation, and the evidence that Officer Holifield
submitted, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s report and accepts her
1

recommendation to grant Officer Holifield’s motion for summary judgment.
Although there are disputed issues of fact concerning the point in time at which
Officer Holifield stopped using force and the extent of the force used (compare
Doc. 1, p. 3 and Doc. 19-1, p. 2), these disputes do not give rise to a jury question
because, as the Magistrate Judge found, “courts should ‘give a wide range of
deference to prison officials acting to preserve discipline and security, including
when considering decisions made at the scene of a disturbance’ . . .” (Doc. 24, p.
5) (quoting Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir. 2007)). Mr. Bonner
offered no evidence to contradict the evidence that demonstrates that on April 4,
2013, Bonner was involved in a prison riot in the morning and in a fist fight with
another prisoner later in the day. Officer Holifield intervened and used force to
break up the fight. Neither the prison reports of the events of the day nor Mr.
Bonner’s medical records contains evidence that suggests that Officer Holifield
used excessive force to stop the fist fight or that he applied force maliciously to
cause harm. Therefore, Mr. Bonner’s Eighth Amendment claim against Officer
Holifield fails as a matter of law.
The Court also adopts the Magistrate Judge’s report and accepts her
recommendation with respect to Mr. Bonner’s claim against Officer Wright. (Doc.
24, p. 1, n.1).
Therefore, the Court finds that there are no genuine issues of material fact as
to Mr. Bonner’s claim against Officer Holifield, and Officer Holifield is entitled to
2

judgment as a matter of law. The Court dismisses Mr. Bonner’s claims against
Officer Wright without prejudice for lack of prosecution.
A final judgment will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED this February 27, 2015.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3