JOHNSON v. IVEY et al
ORDER ADOPTING 49 Report and Recommendations; DENYING 39 Motion for Protective Order; and GRANTING 42 Motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE C ASHLEY ROYAL on 8/26/2016. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ERIC O’BRIEN JOHNSON,
No. 5:14‐CV‐141 (CAR)
Proceedings Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Deputy Warden GEORGE IVEY, et al., :
ORDER ON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation to deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and grant Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment because Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
Plaintiff has filed an Objection to the Recommendation to grant the Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment. This Court has fully considered the record in this case, has
investigated de novo those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
Plaintiff objects, and agrees with the findings and conclusions in the Report and
Recommendation. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order [Doc. 39] is
DENIED; Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 42] is GRANTED; and the
Report and Recommendation [Doc. 49] is ADOPTED AND MADE THE ORDER OF
In this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff asserts Defendants violated
his Eighth Amendment rights by using excessive force when they wrestled Plaintiff to
the ground and struck him in the head with hair clippers while administering a haircut.
The Report and Recommendation concludes Defendants justifiably used force because
Plaintiff repeatedly refused to follow orders during the haircut. This Court agrees. In
his Objection, Plaintiff restates arguments that have been thoroughly addressed in the
Report and Recommendation, and the Court need not restate those findings here.
Plaintiff also argues the Magistrate Judge failed to view the facts in the light most
favorable to Plaintiff. The Court disagrees. As required by the United States Supreme
Court, the Magistrate Judge properly views the facts in the light depicted by the video
evidence.1 Thus, Plaintiff’s objections are overruled.
For the reasons set forth above, the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 49] is
HEREBY ADOPTED AND MADE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT, and Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 42] is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Motion for
Protective Order [Doc. 39] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 26th day of August, 2016.
S/ C. Ashley Royal
C. ASHLEY ROYAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 381 (2007).
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?