Woods v. Edwards
MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 8/25/16. (SAC )
2016 Aug-25 AM 09:05
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JERMAUN D. WOODS,
MICHAEL A. EDWARDS,
Case No. 7:15-cv-01514-KOB-JEO
The magistrate judge filed a report on June 17, 2016, recommending the
defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted and this action dismissed
with prejudice. (Doc. 19). The plaintiff has filed objections to the report and
recommendation, which the court finds unpersuasive. (Doc. 20). 1
The plaintiff contends that the defendant testified falsely when he stated he
first sprayed the plaintiff with mace, and only hit the plaintiff with a baton after
plaintiff continued to resist. (Doc. 20 at 2). The plaintiff contends the plaintiff
sprayed him with mace and then immediately hit him with a baton, and that the
video evidence would corroborate this if the court had obtained it. (Id. at 1-2).
However, this alleged issue of fact becomes immaterial when contrasted with the
The plaintiff’s objections are unsigned in violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and were submitted beyond the fourteen-day deadline imposed in the Report and
Recommendation. However, these issues are moot in light of the court’s finding that the
objections lack merit.
undisputed fact that the plaintiff walked toward the defendant with a clenched fist
and threatened “I’ll beat your weak ass.” (Doc. 11-1). Even taking the plaintiff’s
contention as true, the remaining undisputed evidence demonstrates a need for the
use of force on that occasion. Because immediate action was warranted, the Eighth
Amendment is not violated when force is applied in a good faith effort to restore
order. Ort v. White, 813 F.2d 318, 323 (11th Cir. 1987).
Furthermore, the court must consider the facts as reasonably perceived by
the officers on the scene. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321 (1986). In this
instance, the plaintiff not only admits that he “had words” with the defendant, but
he fails to directly refute the testimony of two officers that he refused the lawful
order to lock down and that he threatened the defendant with physical harm. Even
if it can be shown in hindsight that the full extent of the defendant’s response (as
alleged by the plaintiff) was not strictly necessary under the circumstances, that
fact alone would not be enough to establish a constitutional claim. “The infliction
of pain in the course of a prison security measure does not amount to cruel and
unusual punishment simply because it may appear in retrospect that the degree of
force authorized or applied for security purposes was unreasonable, and hence
unnecessary in the strict sense.” Campbell v. Sikes, 169 F.3d 1353, 1374 (11th
Cir. 1999). In other words, where the use of force is needed, an unreasonable
degree of force alone does not establish that the force was malicious and sadistic
for Eighth Amendment purposes. See McBride v. Rivers, 170 F. App’x 648, 657
(11th Cir. 2006). In this instance, no facts, disputed or otherwise, show that the
defendant acted with the “specific intent” to maliciously or sadistically cause harm,
or that his response to the plaintiff’s threats was unreasonable. See Campbell, 169
F.3d at 1362.
Accordingly, having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the
materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation and the
objections to it, the court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report and ACCEPTS
the recommendation. Therefore, the court finds no genuine issues of material fact,
and that the Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court finds
that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is due to be GRANTED.
The court will enter a separate Final Judgment.
DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of August, 2016.
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
CHIEF 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?