UPSHAW v. MCLAUGHLIN et al
ORDER ADOPTING as modified 74 Report and Recommendations and GRANTING 55 Motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 2/23/2017. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Warden MCLAUGHLIN, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-395 (MTT)
Before the Court is the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Stephen Hyles on
a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 55) brought by all of the remaining Defendants in
this case—Defendants Bobbitt, Bostick, Colbert, Demundo, Hall, Jones, Lindsey,
McIntyre, McLaughlin, and Wilkerson (also identified in some documents as “Kendrick
Wilkinson”). Doc. 74. The Magistrate Judge recommends granting the motion because
(1) the Eleventh Amendment bars the Plaintiff’s official capacity claims; (2) the Prison
Litigation Reform Act bars the Plaintiff’s claims for compensatory and punitive damages;
(3) the Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims are all barred, either by the Plaintiff’s failure to
exhaust or on the merits; and (4) the Plaintiff’s Due Process Clause claims must all fail
because the Plaintiff was not subjected to atypical and significant hardship.1 Id. The
Plaintiff has not objected to the Recommendation.
The Recommendation also concludes that the Due Process claims should fail because the Plaintiff was
afforded sufficient process. Id. at 15-17. Indeed, the Defendants appear to thoroughly document
sufficient process. See Doc. 55-9 at 11-45 (chronicling the Plaintiff’s initial segregation hearing and
multiple subsequent 90-day reviews). But the Court notes that the Plaintiff vigorously disputes parts of
the Defendants’ account of the process the Plaintiff was actually provided. Doc. 67 at 4-5; see id. at 5
(“But the most startling effect of defendants ‘Exhibit H’ [documenting the Plaintiff’s initial 96 hour
segregation hearing], is that it is fictitious, a fraud and a fake document.”). Because the lack of atypical
The Court has reviewed the Recommendation, and the Court accepts and adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The
Recommendation is ADOPTED as modified and made the order of this Court.
Accordingly, the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 55) is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of February, 2017.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
and significant hardship, standing alone, justifies summary judgment on the Plaintiff’s Due Process
claims, the Court limits its ruling to that rationale.
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?