JAMISON v. UNITED STATES MARSHAL'S SERVICE et al
ORDER adopting 141 Report and Recommendation; granting in part and denying in part Long and Bell's 109 Motion to Dismiss Complaint; granting Wrobel and Younger's 114 Motion to Dismiss; granting Kv istad's 119 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part White, Gandee, Weaver, Lee, and Blackmon's 128 Motion to Dismiss Complaint; and lifting the stay of discovery. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE TILMAN E. SELF, III on 5/10/2022. (ech)
Case 5:19-cv-00457-TES-MSH Document 149 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
TEO A. JAMISON,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
Sheriff GARY LONG, et al.,
ORDER ADOPTING THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court are cross-objections to the United States Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) [Doc. 141]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C),
the Court, after “a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection [has been] made[,]”
ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s R&R for the reasons explained below.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
After completing Turner v. Burnside’s two-step process for determining whether
an inmate properly exhausted his institutionally offered administrative remedies as
required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, the magistrate judge
found that Plaintiff Teo A. Jamison failed to do so with respect to his claim for a broken
Case 5:19-cv-00457-TES-MSH Document 149 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 6
finger 1 and his retaliation claim. 513 F.3d 1077 (11th Cir. 2008); [Doc. 141, pp. 8–10]. As
for Jamison’s retaliation claim, the magistrate judge based his recommendation on the
fact that “none of Jamison’s grievances address such [an] issue.” [Doc. 141, p. 10]. To
reach this finding, the magistrate judge squarely addressed all six of Jamison’s relevant
grievances and was especially attentive to their contents. [Id. at pp. 7–14]. The Court, in
its de novo review, does the same.
In pertinent part, Jamison wrote in Grievance Number 201920:
On September 11, 2019[,] I showed [O]fficer Blackmon that I have a need
for my cane. After being constantly harassed by Officer Blackmon[,] I feel
that she does not have my best interest in mind when it comes to my medical
and physical well being [sic]. She has continued to [d]iscriminate against
me and my medical [n]eeds.
[Doc. 140-5, p. 1] (emphasis added). Then, as a desired solution to that grievance,
Jamison wrote that he “would like for [a prison official] to . . . find out why [he]
continue[s] to be [d]iscriminated against [m]edically” and for an officer “without grudge
of retaliation to answer [his] grievance.” [Id.] (emphasis added).
The magistrate judge noted that Jamison—in his arguments opposing
Defendants’ motions to dismiss—didn’t rely on Grievance Number 201920 to support a
retaliation claim, and on top of that, the magistrate judge found that Grievance Number
Jamison did not object to the magistrate judge’s finding that he failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies regarding his broken finger. [Doc. 141, pp. 9–10]. Accordingly, the Court also ADOPTS the
portion of the magistrate judge’s R&R finding that Jamison “failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
for the broken finger claim.” [Id. at p. 10].
Case 5:19-cv-00457-TES-MSH Document 149 Filed 05/10/22 Page 3 of 6
201920 “is too vague to put” Butts County Detention Center (the institution where
Jamison was incarcerated) “on notice of actual retaliation.” [Doc. 141, p. 10 n.3]. “At
most,” the magistrate judge found that Grievance Number 201920 “would place BCDC
on notice that Jamison felt that Blackmon was discriminating against him regarding
[Jamison’s] medical care.” [Id.]. Based on a plain reading of Grievance Number 201920,
the Court sees no reason to disturb this finding.
Jamison, however, objects to this portion of the magistrate judge’s findings, but
he does so on different grounds. [Doc. 148, pp. 1–2]. In short, the magistrate judge
found that Jamison’s grievances addressed topics besides retaliation. [Doc. 141, p. 10].
Rather than attack that specific recommendation, Jamison jumps back to his belief that
his grievances do mention retaliation and that he exhausted his administrative remedies
with respect to such a claim because he followed the appeal process. [Doc. 148, p. 1].
Jamison contends that he “followed up [on Grievance number 201920]” with at
least two handwritten requests to alert appropriate prison officials that Officer
Blackmon “failed to investigate [his] grievances and would attempt to punish him when
he complained about her not doing her job.” [Id.]. However, from reading the R&R and
the parties’ briefs, it appears that Jamison’s handwritten follow-ups regarding
Grievance Number 201920 have yet to make it into the record. Admittedly, Jamison
discussed some seemingly relevant written complaints in his Response [Doc. 134]
opposing Defendants’ motions to dismiss, but they aren’t in the record for the Court to
Case 5:19-cv-00457-TES-MSH Document 149 Filed 05/10/22 Page 4 of 6
consider. See, e.g., [Doc. 134, pp. 3–4, 11–12]. Even though “[n]o copies” of these written
complaints “were provided” to Jamison at the time he says he gave them to various
prison officials, the Court nonetheless ADOPTS the R&R with respect to the magistrate
judge’s finding that Jamison failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to his
retaliation claim. [Id. at p. 4].
As for the magistrate judge’s R&R regarding the exhaustion of administrative
remedies for Jamison’s claim for a denial of a cane, the Court ADOPTS it as well. [Doc.
141, pp. 11–14]; [Doc. 142, p. 1]. Both adoptions, however, come with a caveat.
Defendants have objected to preserve potential exhaustion-based arguments regarding
Jamison’s claim for a denial of a cane. [Doc. 142, p. 1]. Just as Defendants seek to
preserve their “right to raise the [exhaustion] matter again if additional discovery
reveals” evidence for or against exhaustion related to Jamison’s claim for denial of a
cane, Jamison shall also have that right when it comes to his retaliation claim. [Id.]. If, in
fact, Jamison (as he contends) submitted handwritten complaints related to Grievance
Number 201920, then that evidence will assuredly turn up in the discovery Defendants
provide to him.
Defendants have also objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation on
their defense of qualified immunity. [Id. at pp. 2–6]. On this, Defendants and the
magistrate judge both state that they can find no binding precedent that requires prison
Case 5:19-cv-00457-TES-MSH Document 149 Filed 05/10/22 Page 5 of 6
officials to allow inmates to use a cane while incarcerated. [Id. at p. 5]; [Doc. 141, p. 19].
That, however, doesn’t foreclose Jamison’s ability to overcome Defendants’ qualifiedimmunity defense. As the magistrate judge discussed in his R&R, there still remains the
potential showing that Defendants’ alleged conduct was an obvious violation of the
Constitution. [Doc. 141, pp. 17–19]. To the extent discovery reveals such a showing, it
may minimize or even render unnecessary Jamison’s need for some previous case that
clearly established some legal principle related to a claim of deliberate indifference for
safety and for serious medical needs. [Id. at 18–19 (quoting Wade v. United States, 13
F.4th 1217, 1226 (11th Cir. 2021))].
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s R&R with respect to
qualified immunity. Based purely on their motions to dismiss, Defendants’ assertion of
the defense of qualified immunity is DENIED. The benefits of discovery will allow all
parties to present articulated arguments regarding Jamison’s remaining claim as well as
Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity against that claim.
The Court ADOPTS the United States Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation [Doc. 141]. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants Wrobel,
Younger’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 114] and Defendant Kvistad’s Motion to Dismiss.
[Doc. 119]. Defendants Long and Bell’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 109] is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part. Defendants White, Gandee, Weaver, Lee, and Blackmon’s
Case 5:19-cv-00457-TES-MSH Document 149 Filed 05/10/22 Page 6 of 6
Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 128] is also GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Unless
discovery reveals otherwise, the only claim that remains in this case is Jamison’s Eighth
Amendment claim implicating both a deliberate indifference to safety and deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need related to Defendants Long, White, Gandee,
Weaver, Lee, and Blackmon’s alleged denial of a cane during his confinement in the
Butts County Detention Center.
The Court LIFTS the STAY of discovery previously imposed, and pursuant to
the United States Magistrate Judge’s Order and Recommendation [Doc. 23], the parties
have 90 days from today’s date to conduct discovery. [Doc. 23, pp. 19–20]. Dispositive
motions should be filed at the earliest time possible, but no later than 120 days from
when the discovery period begins. [Id. at p. 21].
SO ORDERED, this 10th day of May, 2022.
S/ Tilman E. Self, III
TILMAN E. SELF, III, 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?