NOLLEY v. MCLAUGHLIN et al
Filing
65
ORDER ADOPTING 49 Report and Recommendations; GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 31 Motion to Dismiss Complaint; DENYING 34 Motion for Reconsideration ; GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 44 Motion to Amend/Correct; GRANTING 61 Motion to Withdraw Argument; and DENYING 62 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE C ASHLEY ROYAL on 8/31/2016. (tlh)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
DARNELL NOLLEY,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
Civil Action
:
No. 5:15‐cv‐149 (CAR)
v.
:
:
GREGORY McLAUGHLIN, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
_____________________________________
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Currently before the Court are (1) the Report and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge to grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend
Complaint and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; (2) Defendants’ Motion to Withdraw
their Argument related to exhaustion of Plaintiff’s administrative remedies Defendants
asserted in their Objection; and (3) Plaintiff’s First and Second Motions for
Reconsideration of the Court’s Order denying his request to appoint him an attorney.
Defendants’ Motion to Withdraw Argument [Doc. 61] is GRANTED, and their
objection related to Plaintiff’s exhaustion of administrative remedies of his due process
claim is hereby WITHDRAWN. Plaintiff’s First and Second Motions for
Reconsideration [Docs. 34 and 62] are DENIED for the same reasons the Magistrate
Judge expressed in its Order [Doc. 28] denying Plaintiff’s original request for counsel.
As stated in that Order, “there is no need for Plaintiff to file additional requests for
1
counsel” because “[s]hould it later become apparent that legal assistance is required in
order to avoid prejudice to Plaintiff’s rights, the Court, on its own motion, will consider
assisting him in securing legal counsel at that time.”1
The Report and Recommendation recommends denying Plaintiff’s Motion to
Amend his Complaint with regard to his claims against Homer Bryson, and his due
process claims arising out of his confinement at Valdosta and Ware State Prisons; and
granting the Motion with regard to Plaintiff’s due process claims against Defendants
Trevonza Bobbitt, S. Henderson, Stephen Bostick, and Dorian Giles at Macon State
Prison. Plaintiff filed an Objection [Doc. 57] as to his claims against Homer Bryson;
Defendants have not filed an Objection to this part of the Recommendation. Plaintiff
contends he has stated a plausible claim for injunctive relief against Homer Bryson, and
thus his Motion to Amend should not be denied as futile. The Court disagrees. The
allegation that Bryson, in his capacity as the Commissioner of the State of Georgia’s
Department of Corrections (GDOC), is legally responsible for the overall operation of
the GDOC, is not sufficient to sustain his claim for an order requiring Bryson to release
Plaintiff from segregation. As explained in the Recommendation, Plaintiff’s allegations
show Bryson is named as a party simply because he holds supervisory position as the
Commissioner of the GDOC, and the allegations fail to allege either a personal
involvement by Bryson or a causal connection between Bryson and Plaintiff’s continued
1
Order dated Nov. 11, 2015 [Doc. 28].
2
confinement. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion to amend his complaint to add these claims must
be denied as futile.
The Report and Recommendation also recommends denying Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss as to Plaintiff’s due process claims relating to his October 2014 disciplinary
hearing and his claims for injunctive relief against Defendants McLaughlin and Myrick;
and granting the Motion as to (1) Plaintiff’s excessive force claims against Defendants
McLaughlin, Blakely, Jones, McIntyre, Jackson, Ridley, Eaddie, Cox, and Woolfork, and
(2) Plaintiff’s failure to provide adequate medical treatment claims against Defendants
Haynes and Frazier because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Both
Plaintiff and Defendants have filed Objections [Docs. 57 and 59]. This Court has fully
considered the record in this case and made a de novo determination of the portions of
the Recommendation to which Plaintiff and Defendants object. Having done so, the
Court finds all Objections to be without merit. Plaintiff and Defendants restate claims
and contentions that have been thoroughly and completely addressed in the
Recommendation. This Court agrees with the reasoning and conclusions set forth in the
Recommendation and needs not restate such reasoning here.
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. 49] is
HEREBY ADOPTED AND MADE THE ORDER OF THE COURT. Plaintiff’s Motion
to Amend his Complaint [Doc. 44] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART: It is
DENIED with regard to his claims against Homer Bryson, and his due process claims
3
arising out of his confinement at Valdosta and Ware State Prisons; and GRANTED with
regard to Plaintiff’s due process claims against Defendants Trevonza Bobbitt, S.
Henderson, Stephen Bostick, and Dorian Giles at Macon State Prison. Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 31] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART: It is
DENIED as to Plaintiff’s due process claims relating to his October 2014 disciplinary
hearing and his claims for injunctive relief against Defendants McLaughlin and Myrick;
and GRANTED as to (1) Plaintiff’s excessive force claims against Defendants
McLaughlin, Blakely, Jones, McIntyre, Jackson, Ridley, Eaddie, Cox, and Woolfork, and
(2) Plaintiff’s failure to provide adequate medical treatment claims against Defendants
Haynes and Frazier because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Defendants’ Motion to Withdraw Argument [Doc. 61] is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s
First and Second Motions for Reconsideration [Docs. 34 and 62] to appoint counsel are
DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 31st day of August, 2016.
SSH
S/ C. Ashley Royal
C. ASHLEY ROYAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?