McClellan v. Edwards
ORDER ADOPTING the Magistrate Judge's 25 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Defendant's 17 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Defendant is hereby ORDERED to file an Answer to Plaintiff's claims that were not dismissed by this Order within twenty (20) days of the entry date of this Order. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 7/22/2014. (JLC)
2014 Jul-22 PM 01:30
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JEFFERY ALLEN MCCLELLAN,
) Case No.: 7:13-cv-00950-VEH-SGC
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER EDWARDS, )
By a report and recommendation entered on July 1, 2014, the magistrate judge
recommended the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant, Correctional
Officer Michael Edwards (“Defendant”), be granted as to the claim of Plaintiff, Jeffery
Allen McClellan (“Plaintiff”), against him in his official capacity for monetary damages
and that that claim be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 25). The magistrate judge further
recommended Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be denied as to Plaintiff’s
Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against him. (Id.). Lastly, the magistrate
judge recommended Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment excessive force claim on the basis of qualified immunity be denied. (Id.).
The parties were allowed fourteen (14) days to file written objections to the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation. On July 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed objections. (Doc.
Plaintiff argues his claim against Defendant in his official capacity for monetary
damages should not be dismissed. (Doc. 26 at 1). It is well settled state officials sued
for monetary damages in their official capacities are immune from suit under the
Eleventh Amendment. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985). Therefore,
Plaintiff cannot recover monetary damages from Defendant in his official capacity.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court
file, including the report and recommendation and the objections thereto, the Court is
of the opinion the magistrate judge's report is due to be and is hereby ADOPTED and
the magistrate judge's recommendation is ACCEPTED. Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment is, therefore, due to be and is hereby GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED to the extent Plaintiff
seeks monetary relief against Defendant in his official capacity, and that claim is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is
DENIED as to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against him.
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity as to
Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim is also DENIED.
Defendant is hereby ORDERED to file an answer to Plaintiff’s claims that were
not dismissed by this Order within twenty (20) days of the entry date of this Order.
DONE this 22nd day of July, 2014.
VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?