WELLS v. MCNEILL

Filing 42

ORDER: The magistrate judge's 35 Report and Recommendation with respect to the plaintiff's Equal Protection claim is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order. The magistrate Judge's Report and Recommen dation with respect to the plaintiff's First Amendment claim is rejected. The Defendant's motion for summary judgment (doc. 29 ) is GRANTED with respect to the plaintiff's Equal Protection claim and DENIED with respect to the plaintiff's First Amendment claim. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE M CASEY RODGERS on 5/2/2012. (djb)

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
THOMAS PERRY WELLS, JR,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 4:10cv441-MP-WCS

KENNETH S. TUCKER, Secretary,
Florida Department of Corrections,
Defendant.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and
Recommendation dated February 15, 2012 (doc. 35). The parties have been furnished a
copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file
objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de
novo determination of any timely filed objections.
Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto
timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted
in part and rejected in part.

Specifically, the court finds that the Report and

Recommendation should be adopted with respect to the plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim
and rejected with respect to the plaintiff’s First Amendment claim.1
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:
1.

The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation with respect to the

plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.
2.

The magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation with respect to the

plaintiff’s First Amendment claim is rejected.

1

The undersigned finds a genuine issue of m aterial fact with regard to the availability of less restrictive
alternatives to the policy at issue, as evidenced by the fact that the Florida Departm ent of Corrections has
proposed a rule allowing inm ates to m ake collect calls to pre-approved, personal cell phones under certain
circum stances. If the proposed rule has already been im plem ented, however, the plaintiff’s First Am endm ent
claim likely will be m oot, in which the case the defendant shall so advise the court within ten (10) days of the
date of this order.

Page 2 of 2

3.

The Defendant's motion for summary judgment (doc. 29) is GRANTED with

respect to the plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim and DENIED with respect to the plaintiff’s
First Amendment claim.
DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 2012.

s/

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 4:10-cv-00441-MP-WCS