Anderson v. Sealey et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER the magistrate judge's report is hereby ADOPTED and the recommendation is ACCEPTED. the court ORDERS that the defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED on the individual capacity claims against Sealey, M onk, Barr, and White for excessive force and against Jemison and King for failure to protect. the court FURTHER ORDERS that the defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in all other respects. Additionally the court ORDERS that the plai ntiff's claims against defendant Franklin are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of service of process. The court FURTHER ORDERS that the plaintiff's medical conditions of confinement, and due process claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 6/17/2019. (AFS)

FILED
2019 Jun-17 AM 09:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION
TERRY LEE ANDERSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SERGEANT JAMES Q. SEALEY, et )
al.,
)
)
Defendants.

Civil Action Number:
7:17-cv-01024-AKK-JHE

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The magistrate judge entered a report on May 23, 2019, recommending the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part.
Doc. 27. Specifically, the report recommended summary judgment be: (1) granted
on the official capacity claims against the defendants for monetary relief; (2)
denied on the individual capacity claims against Sealey, Monk, Barr, and White for
excessive force; and (3) denied on the individual capacity claims against Jemison
and King for failure to protect. Id. The report further recommended dismissal of
the plaintiff’s medical, conditions of confinement, and due process claims pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. Id. Although the parties were advised of their right to file specific
written objections within fourteen days, no one has filed objections.

Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials 1 in the
court file, including the report and recommendation, the magistrate judge’s report
is hereby ADOPTED and the recommendation is ACCEPTED. Accordingly, the
court ORDERS that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED on
the individual capacity claims against Sealey, Monk, Barr, and White for excessive
force and against Jemison and King for failure to protect. Finding no genuine issue
of material fact and that the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law
as to the other claims, the court FURTHER ORDERS that the defendants’ motion
for summary judgment is GRANTED in all other respects.
Additionally, the court ORDERS that the plaintiff’s claims against
defendant Franklin are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of
service of process. The court FURTHER ORDERS that the plaintiff’s medical,
conditions of confinement, and due process claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failing to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.
1

In reviewing the evidence in the record, the court did not consider the impermissible legal
conclusions included in six affidavits submitted by Defendants King, Barr, White, Sealey, Monk,
and Jemison. See docs. 12-2, 12-3, 12-5, 12-6, 12-7, and 12-8 (Each affidavit identically ends
with the statement “[a]t no time did I violate the constitutional rights of inmate Terry Lee
Anderson.”). The Eleventh Circuit and Federal Rule of Evidence 701 prohibit a “lay person
[who] is not qualified to make conclusions of law.” See Montgomery v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.,
898 F.2d 1537, 1541 (11th Cir. 1990) (“A witness also may not testify to the legal implications
of conduct; the court must be the jury’s only source of law.”); KW Plastics v. U.S. Can Co., 131
F. Supp. 2d 1265, 1273–74 (M.D. Ala. 2001) (“[Rule 701] requires that the witness perceive
something firsthand and that the witness’s perception provide a truly rational basis for his or her
opinion.”).
2

The Clerk is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and
Order on the plaintiff.
DONE the 17th day of June, 2019.

ABDUL K. KALLON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3