Cunningham v. Culliver et al

Filing 232

ORDER ADOPTING 229 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Motions for Summary Judgment of Dfts Culliver, Bishop, Watson, Sizemore, Broadhead, Burroughs, Portis & Nurse Carroll are GRANTED as to all claims asserted against them by Plf. Motions for Summary Jud gment of Dfts Jenkins, Ashworth, McCrory, Stanton, Brazile, Branch, Brandon Carroll, and Corbitt are DENIED as to Plf's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim based on the use of the stun shield during the cell extraction & with respect to Plf&# 039;s state law assault and battery claims arising out of Dfts' use of physical force and the use of the stun shield during the cell extraction. With the exception of the claims specified above, Motions for Summary Judgment of Dfts Jenkins, Ashworth, McCrory, Stanton, Brazile, Branch, Brandon Carroll, and Corbitt is GRANTED as to all remaining claims asserted against them by Plf. Signed by Judge Callie V. S. Granade on 12/6/2011. (copy mailed to Plf on 12/7/11) (tot)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHARLES W. CUNNINGHAM, JR.
(AIS #193686)
Plaintiff,
vs.

:
:
:
:

GRANTT CULLIVER, et al.,

CIVIL ACTION 10-00114-CG-M

:

Defendants.
ORDER
After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant
to the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the
Recommendation to which objection is made, the Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion
of this Court, as follows:
1)

The motions for summary judgment of Defendants Culliver, Bishop,

Watson, Sizemore, Broadhead, Burroughs, Portis, and Nurse Sara Carroll are
GRANTED as to all claims asserted against them by Plaintiff in the Complaint;
2)

The motions for summary judgment of Defendants Jenkins, Ashworth,

McCrory, Stanton, Brazile, Branch, Brandon Carroll, and Corbitt are DENIED as
to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim based on the use of the stun
shield during the cell extraction;
3)

The motions for summary judgment of Defendants Jenkins, Ashworth,

McCrory, Stanton, Brazile, Branch, Brandon Carroll, and Corbitt are DENIED as

to Plaintiff’s state law assault and battery claims arising out of Defendants’ use of
physical force and the use of the stun shield during the cell extraction; and
4)

With the exception of the claims specified in paragraphs 2 and 3 above,

the motions for summary judgment of Defendants Jenkins, Ashworth, McCrory,
Stanton, Brazile, Branch, Brandon Carroll, and Corbitt are GRANTED as to all
remaining claims asserted against them by Plaintiff in the Complaint.
DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of December, 2011.
/s/ Callie V. S. Granade
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2