Chastain v. Barber et al

Filing 32

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations as modified by the Order re 30 Report and Recommendations; granting in part and denying in part 18 Motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 09/09/10. (mbh)

Chastain v. Barber et al

Doc. 32

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA V AL D O S T A DIVISION T R AC Y PHIL CHASTAIN, P la in tiff, C iv il Action No. 7:09-CV-26 v. O F F IC E R BARBER and WARDEN D AR R E L L J. HART, Defendants. ORDER T h is case is before the Court on a Recommendation from United States M a g is tra te Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff (Doc. 30), entered on August 19, 2010. The M a g is tra te Judge recommends that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 18) file d by Defendants be granted, in part, and denied, in part. D e fe n d a n ts have filed an objection (Doc. 31) as to the recommendation to d e n y the Motion for Summary Judgment with regard to Plaintiff's excessive force c la im against Defendant Barber. The Court has made a de novo review of the p o rtio n of the Recommendation to which Defendants object. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that there is an issue of fact r e m a in in g with regard to the excessive force claim. Plaintiff testified during his d e p o s itio n that Defendant Barber hit him and kicked him while Plaintiff was h a n d c u ffe d and not resisting. W h ile Defendant Barber, not surprisingly, swears that

Dockets.Justia.com

he did not use any force against Plaintiff, it is for a jury to decide whose version of th e facts are credible. D e fe n d a n ts also argue that any compensatory or punitive damage claim is b a rre d by the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") because any injuries suffered b y Plaintiff were de minimis. Under the PLRA, a prisoner is precluded from bringing a federal civil action "fo r mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of p h ys ic a l harm." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). If a prisoner cannot show anything more than m e n ta l or emotional suffering, he is prohibited from obtaining compensatory or p u n itive damages. Harris v. Garner, 190 F.3d 1279, 1286-87 (11th Cir. 1999), v a c a te d in part and reinstated in part, Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 984-85 (11th C ir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff testified that he suffered "minor bruises" as a result of the alleged b e a tin g by Defendant Barber. Minor bruising, without anything more, is considered a de minimis injury. See Nolin v. Isbell, 207 F.3d 1253, 1258 n. 4 (11th Cir. 2000). N e ve rth e le s s , Plaintiff may still be entitled to receive nominal damages. See Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1162 (11th Cir. 2003). Thus, Plaintiff will be restricted at the tria l of this case to a claim for nominal damages. He will not be allowed to request c o m p e n s a to ry or punitive damages from the jury. T he Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and

re c o m m e n d a tio n s of the Magistrate Judge, as modified by this Order. Defendants'
2

Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 18) is granted, in part, and denied, in part. This c a s e will be set on the October 2010 trial calendar.

S O ORDERED, this the 9th day of September, 2010.

/s / Hugh Lawson HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE m bh

3