WILLIAMS v. CULPEPPER

Filing 101

ORDER ADOPTING 92 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, granting 72 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by SIMMONS, SINCLAIR and directing Clerk to close file; signed by SENIOR JUDGE MAURICE M PAUL on 4/24/14. (tss)

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
HENRY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 5:11-cv-00378-MP-GRJ

MELVIN SIMMONS and HELEN SINCLAIR,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation dated December 6, 2013. (Doc. 92). 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 of the file,
including the objections filed by plaintiff, Doc. 96, and have determined that the Report and
Recommendation should be adopted.
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that even under the version of the facts
construed most favorably to the plaintiff, the two guards in the cafeteria had no reason to suspect
the attacker would harm the plaintiff until the moment of the attack. Also, the Court agrees that
Sgt. Sinclair acted reasonably and pursuant to policy in maintaining control over the other
prisoners and signaling control instead of physically intervening in the attack. Finally, even if
Sgt. Simmons only issued verbal commands during the attack, the Court agrees with the cases
cited by the Magistrate Judge from the Sixth, Fourth and Tenth Circuits stating that, "prison
guards have no constitutional duty to intervene in an armed assault by an inmate when the

Page 2 of 2

intervention would place the guard in danger of physical harm " Patmon v. Parker, 3 Fed. Appx.
337, 338 (6th Cir. 2001). Even under the plaintiff's version of the events, the only way Sgt.
Simmons could have intervened more extensively than he did would be to place himself in
danger of physical harm.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated
by reference in this order.

2.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 72, is GRANTED, and the
Clerk is directed to close this case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of April, 2014

s/Maurice M. Paul
Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 5:11-cv-00378-MP-GRJ