WEST v. COPELAND et al
ORDER ADOPTING 9 Report and Recommendations. The Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Williams, Copeland, and Sirmans are dismissed, and these parties are dismissed as Defendants in this case. The Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Temple will go forward as ordered by the Magistrate Judge. Ordered by U.S. District Judge MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 4/28/2014. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Sergeant TEMPLE, Sergeant
COPELAND, Sergeant SIRMANS, and
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-86 (MTT)
Before the Court is the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Stephen Hyles.
(Doc. 9). The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court dismiss the Plaintiff’s claims
against Defendants Williams, Copeland, and Sirmans following a preliminary screening
of his case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
The Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation. (Docs.
16, 17). The Court has reviewed the Recommendation and the Plaintiff’s objections.1
The Recommendation is adopted and made the ORDER of the Court. The Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendants Williams, Copeland, and Sirmans are dismissed, and these
As to Defendants Copeland and Sirmans, the Plaintiff states additional facts in his objection
that might suggest a “failure to intervene” claim against them based on Defendant Temple’s
alleged use of excessive force. However, even if the Court were to accept these facts as a
proper amendment to his complaint, the Plaintiff still has not sufficiently supported this claim
because he has not alleged facts indicating Copeland and Sirmans had “a realistic and
reasonable opportunity to intervene.” Sampson v. Bess, 2013 WL 4078218, at *3 (S.D. Ga.)
parties are dismissed as Defendants in this case. The Plaintiff’s claim against
Defendant Temple will go forward as ordered by the Magistrate Judge.
SO ORDERED, this 28th day of April, 2014.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?