WELLS v. LUMPKIN, CITY OF et al

Filing 41

ORDER granting 34 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 25 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 28 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 31 Motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 04/19/2013 (jcs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
JANICE WELLS,

*

Plaintiff,

*

vs.

*

CITY OF LUMPKIN, et al.,

*

CASE NO. 4:12-cv-93 (CDL)
Defendants.

*
O R D E R

This action arises from the alleged misconduct of two law
enforcements officers.
Complaint,

Wells

According to Plaintiff Janice Wells’s

called

local

law

enforcement

regarding

a

prowler at her home whom she apparently knew.

Defendant Timothy

L.

of

Murphy,

a

police

officer

dispatched to her home.

with

the

City

Richland,

was

Wells alleges that when she refused to

disclose the identity of the prowler, Murphy sprayed her with
pepper

spray.

obstructed

a

Murphy
law

contends

enforcement

that

officer,

Wells
and

was

combative,

resisted

arrest.

Defendant Ryan Flemen Smith, a police officer with the City of
Lumpkin, appeared at the scene to provide assistance after being
notified

of

alleges

that

the
when

struggle
Smith

electrical Taser device.
a law enforcement officer.

between
arrived,

Wells
Smith

and

Murphy.

shocked

her

Wells
with

an

Wells was arrested for obstruction of

Wells has sued the City of Richland, the City of Lumpkin,
Officer Murphy, and Officer Smith pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
for violations of her constitutional rights under the Fourth,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

She also asserts state law

claims for assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest,
trespass, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional
distress.

All

Defendants

have

filed

judgment (ECF Nos. 25, 28, 31, 34).

motions

for

summary

Wells has failed to respond

to these motions.1
Wells’s

failure

to

respond

to

Defendants’

statements

of

undisputed material facts requires the Court to accept those
facts

as

having

been

admitted.

See

M.D.

Ga.

R.

56

(“All

material facts contained in the moving party’s statement which
are not specifically controverted by specific citation to the
record

shall

be

Notwithstanding

deemed
these

to

have

admissions,

been

admitted

summary

.

judgment

.

.

.”).

cannot

be

granted by default, and the Court must review the record to
determine

whether

the

present

record

supports

the

conclusion

that Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d 1253, 1269 (11th Cir. 2008).

Having

reviewed that record, the Court finds that Defendants Murphy and
Smith

are

entitled

to

qualified

1

immunity

on

Wells’s

federal

While the Court declines to speculate as to why no responses to the
motions were filed, the Court’s review of the record does reveal that
Wells acknowledged during her deposition that the allegations in her
verified complaint may not have been entirely accurate.

2

claims and official immunity on Wells’s state law claims.

The

Court further finds that no evidence appears in the present
record that the cities of Richland or Lumpkin had any custom or
policy that caused the alleged constitutional violations, and
therefore,

they

cannot

be

liable

under

42

U.S.C.

§

1983.

Finally, no evidence exists in the present record supporting any
basis for holding these cities liable for
claims.
judgment

Accordingly,
is

granted,

each
and

Defendant’s

this

action

Wells’s state law

motion
is

for

dismissed

summary
in

its

entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 19th day of April, 2013.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3