Anthony v. Gordy et al

Filing 81

MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING and ACCEPTING the 75 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Also pending are Plaintiff's motions seeking (1) to reinstate his first amended complaint (doc. 77); (2) to subpoena an inmate as a witness (doc. 78); (3) an order directing the defendants to undergo a mental evaluation (doc. 79); and (4) production of video surveillance showing his refusal of medical treatment (doc.80). Upon due consideration, the motions are DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 9/18/2019. (JLC)

FILED
2019 Sep-18 PM 12:49
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION
VERTIS ANTHONY,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN WILLIE THOMAS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 7:16-cv-00649-KOB-SGC

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The magistrate judge filed a report on August 7, 2019, recommending the
defendants’ motions for summary judgment be granted and the plaintiff’s claims be
dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 75). The plaintiff filed objections to the report
and recommendation on August 23, 2019, along with several motions. (Docs. 7680).
In his objections, the plaintiff repeats his claims that defendant Gordy
prolonged his confinement in disciplinary segregation for six months and denied
him exercise. (Doc. 76 at 6-7). However, the plaintiff does not address the
magistrate judge’s findings that he was transferred to Limestone after the plaintiff
completed his disciplinary segregation time at Draper. And at Limestone, he was
assigned to the RHU in Preventative status, not disciplinary segregation. (Doc. 75
at 8-10). Although the plaintiff complains that in the RHU he was only allowed to

walk outside while restrained (Doc. 76 at 7), the plaintiff does not allege he was
denied all forms of exercise (Doc. 75 at 10-12). Neither does the plaintiff allege he
was prohibited from exercising in his cell. See Saunders v. Sheriff of Brevard Cty.,
735 F. App’x 559, 566 (11th Cir. 2018).
Next, the plaintiff restates his allegation that defendant McKay was
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by administering injections of
medications without purging the air bubbles from the syringe. (Doc. 76 at 8).
McKay disputes giving the plaintiff medications intravenously and further
contends no air bubbles were in medications she administered to him
subcutaneously. (Doc. 75 at 14-15). But even if plaintiff’s allegations are true, he
has not introduced any medical evidence demonstrating (1) the bubbles, in fact,
caused his pain; or (2) he ever sought medical treatment for this complaint. So the
record lacks any evidence of evidence that McKay was deliberately indifferent to
the plaintiff’s serious medical needs.
To the extent the plaintiff complains that defendants Gordy and Thomas
disregarded an order to transfer him to Hamilton A & I, the plaintiff has not shown
the existence of such an order, much less that Gordy and Thomas had knowledge
of it.
Also pending are the plaintiff’s motions seeking (1) to reinstate his first
amended complaint (doc. 77); (2) to subpoena an inmate as a witness (doc. 78); (3)
2

an order directing the defendants to undergo a mental evaluation (doc. 79); and (4)
production of video surveillance showing his refusal of medical treatment (doc.
80). Upon due consideration, the motions are DENIED.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the
court file, including the report and recommendation and the plaintiff’s objections,
the court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report and ACCEPTS her
recommendation. (Doc. 75). Accordingly, the defendants’ motions for summary
judgment are due to be granted.
The court will enter a separate Final Order.
DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of September, 2019.

____________________________________
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3