HOLLAND v. MCLAUGHLIN et al

Filing 63

ORDER adopting 61 Report and Recommendations and granting 45 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court also denies 62 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend his Complaint and directs the Clerk of Court to close the case. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE TILMAN E SELF, III on 03/25/2019. (chc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
CLYDE FRANKLIN HOLLDAND,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN GREGORY MCLAUGHLIN, et
al.,

CIVIL ACTION NO.
5:16-cv-00331-TES-MSH

Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Order and Report and Recommendation
[Doc. 61] on Defendants Warden Gregory McLaughlin, Doctor Robinson, and Doctor
Fye’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 45]. The Magistrate Judge recommended that
the Court grant Defendants’ motion because Plaintiff did not provide evidence that
created a genuine issue of material fact. See generally [Doc. 45]. Plaintiff filed an objection
to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the Court dismiss his claim against
Defendant McLaughlin but conceded that the Magistrate Judge was correct with respect
to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Fye and Robinson. [Doc. 62, at p. 5]. Plaintiff also
took issue with the Magistrate Judge’s denial of his Motion for Leave to File an Amended
Complaint [Doc. 52]. [Id. at pp. 2–4]. However, because the Magistrate Judge had the
independent authority to deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, the Court construes this part

of Plaintiff’s objection as a second Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. For
reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES this motion.
Having thoroughly reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and
Plaintiff’s objection, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 61] and
MAKES IT THE ORDER OF THE COURT. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 45].
A.

Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint

The Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff asks the Court to allow him to amend his Complaint to assert claims against
Sergeant Mango and two engineers—Winder and Middleton—who he claims were
responsible for the design of his cell. See [Doc. 62, at pp. 2 & 5]. Because of the timing of
this motion, Plaintiff may only amend his Complaint with the Court’s leave. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a). The Court must “freely give leave when justice so requires” but the decision
to grant leave to amend is ultimately within the Court’s discretion. Id.; Foman v. Davis,
371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (“[T]he grant or denial of an opportunity to amend is within the
discretion of the District Court.”). But the Court must not exercise its discretion
arbitrarily; therefore, if the Court denies a motion to amend, it must give a valid reason
for doing so. Foman, 371 U.S. at 182 (“[O]utright refusal to grant the leave without any
justifying reason appearing for the denial is not an exercise of discretion; it is merely
abuse of that discretion.”). Among the valid reasons for denying a motion to amend are
2

“undue delay, . . . repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously
allowed, . . . [and] futility of amendment.” Id.
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s undue delay in asserting his claim against Sergeant
Mango warrant denying Plaintiff’s motion with regard to this claim. Although Plaintiff
does not allege Sergeant Mango’s role in Plaintiff’s injury, it is clear that Plaintiff knew of
Sergeant Mango’s role in the incident from the time Plaintiff filed his Complaint. See [Doc.
62, at p. 3]. Consequently, the Court finds that there was undue delay in asserting this
claim. Plaintiff filed his Complaint in July of 2016 [Doc. 1], supplemented it four months
later [Doc. 6], and amended it in April 2018 [Doc. 34] (granting Motion to Amend [Doc.
27] filed seven months earlier). Plaintiff had ample opportunity to assert a claim against
Sergeant Mango, but chose to wait until after the close of discovery and Defendants’ filing
of a motion for summary judgment. In light of this case history and in the absence of
compelling justification for such a delay, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
Amend his Complaint to add a claim against Sergeant Mango.
The Court also finds that allowing Plaintiff to assert a claim against the two
engineers allegedly responsible for designing his cell would be futile. A motion to amend
is futile when the new claims could not survive a motion to dismiss. Mizzaro v. Home
Depot, Inc., 544 F.3d 1230, 1255 (11th Cir. 2008) (“Because justice does not require district
courts to waste their time on hopeless cases, leave may be denied if a proposed
amendment . . . fails to state a claim.”). Here, Plaintiff made no supporting allegations of
3

wrongdoing on the part of the engineers nor did he identify the type of claims he
intended to assert against them. The complete absence of allegations supporting a claim
of any type means Plaintiff’s amended complaint with claims added against the engineers
simply would not survive a motion to dismiss even with the benefit of the liberal
construction owed to pro se pleadings.
B. Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
The Court now turns to Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation and finds that they are without merit. The Magistrate Judge
recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant McLaughlin
because “Plaintiff [did] not directly contradict any of Defendants’ factual showings.”
[Doc. 61, at p. 6]. With regard to Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant McLaughlin, the
Magistrate Judge noted that “the undisputed facts show that Defendant McLaughlin was
not aware of, nor disregarded, any excessive risk to Plaintiff’s health and safety.” [Id.].
Rather than meeting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation head on, Plaintiff spends
most of his objection dwelling on the fact of his injury and Defendants’ alleged conduct
after his injury occurred. See, e.g., [Doc. 62, at p. 6]. The Court is, of course, sympathetic to
Plaintiff and the serious injury he sustained, but the mere existence of an injury does not
automatically entitle one to relief. As the Magistrate Judge made clear, Plaintiff’s claim
against Defendant McLaughlin can survive summary judgment only if he provides some
evidence that Defendant McLaughlin “disregard[ed] an excessive risk” to Plaintiff’s
4

health and safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Defendant McLaughlin
specifically denied knowing of a risk posed by the locker and Plaintiff’s supporting
affidavit only stated that other officers at the facility knew of inmates hitting their heads
on the locker. Compare [Doc. 45-8, at p. 4] with [Doc. 48-3, at p. 3]. In the absence of a
specific rebuttal from Plaintiff as to Defendant McLaughlin’s lack of knowledge, the
Magistrate Judge appropriately recommended that the Court grant Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend
his Complaint [Doc. 62] and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Order and Report and
Recommendation [Doc. 61]. Consequently, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment [Doc. 45]. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to close the case.
SO ORDERED this 25th day of March, 2019.

S/ Tilman E. Self, III
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5