ANDERSON v. Chapman et al
ORDER adopting 29 Report and Recommendations and granting 21 Motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by Judge C. Ashley Royal on 8/20/13 (lap) ***
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
JONATHAN JEFFERY ANDERSON, :
No. 3:12‐CV‐88 (CAR)
JOE CHAPMAN, et al.,
ORDER ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
[Doc. 29] to grant Defendants Joe Chapman, Wade Harris, and Deborah Atkinson’s
Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 21], thereby dismissing Plaintiff Jonathan Jeffery
Anderson’s Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in its entirety. In the
Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate
any genuine issue of material fact concerning either his conditions of confinement
claim or his due process claim. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, subsequently filed an
Objection to the Recommendation [Doc. 30]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1), the
Court has thoroughly considered Petitionerʹs Objection, has made a de novo
determination of the portions of the Recommendation to which Petitioner objects, and
finds the Objection to be without merit.
In his Objection, Plaintiff contends that the circumstances surrounding his
confinement are irrelevant as the only pertinent issue is whether his “punitive
confinement” violated due process.1 In support he cites to an Eighth Circuit case
acknowledging that “[r]equiring a pretrial detainee to work or be placed in
administrative segregation is punishment” and that pretrial detainees may not be
punished.2 Plaintiff accordingly argues that he was placed in administrative
segregation as punishment. However, as discussed in the Recommendation, there is
no evidence that the named Defendants placed Plaintiff in administrative segregation
for the purpose of punishment, as is required for Plaintiff’s due process claim to
succeed on the merits.3 The Court further agrees with the Magistrate Judge that
Plaintiff’s placement in administrative segregation was based on several legitimate
considerations. Consequently, because the Court finds that the evidence supports
only that Plaintiff’s confinement was based on several legitimate considerations, there
is no evidence that Plaintiff’s confinement was punitive and thus that it violated due
Accompanying his objection, Plaintiff has attached several portions of the
Walton County Detention Facility policies and procedures that he argues establish that
[Doc. 30 at 1].
Martinez v. Turner, 277 F.2d 421, 423 (8th Cir. 1992).
3 See Kibwika v. Broward Cnty. Sherriff’s Office, 453 F. App’x 915, 919 (11th Cir. 2012) (holding that pretrial
detainee cannot be punished, and “[t]o determine whether a restriction constitutes punishment, [the
court] must decide whether the disability is imposed for the purpose of punishment or whether it is but
an incident of some other legitimate governmental purpose”).
“not only are cells twelve and three administrative segregation units, but that
Defendants Chapman and Harris are indeed directly responsible for the
implementation of the policies resulting in Plaintiff’s punitive confinement.”4
Assuming arguendo that Plaintiff’s attachments establish that cells twelve and three are
administrative segregation units and that Defendants Chapman and Harris are
directly responsible for implementing the polices, there is still no evidence that
Plaintiff’s administrative segregation was punitive. Consequently, Plaintiff’s
objections are overruled.
Based on the foregoing, the Court agrees with the findings and conclusions of
the United States Magistrate Judge; the Recommendation [Doc. 29] is therefore
ADOPTED and MADE THE ORDER OF THE COURT. Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment [Doc. 21] is GRANTED, and the instant action is hereby
DISMISSED in its entirety.
SO ORDERED, this 20th day of August, 2013.
S/ C. Ashley Royal
C. ASHLEY ROYAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[Doc. 1 at 2].
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?