Wilson v. Bussey et al

Filing 28

ORDER adopting 21 Report and Recommendation and overruling objections. Plaintiffs claims based on (1) deliberate indifference to safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Bussey, Caler, and Codey, (2) violation of prison regulations against all defendants, and (3) supervisory liability against Defendant Bussey are dismissed. Defendants Bussey, Caler, and Codey are dismissed this case. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 05/12/2014. (thb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

GENE RENARD WILSON,
Plaintiff,
CV 113-054

TERRI BUSSEY, Deputy Warden of Care
and Treatment; SGT. CODEY; LT. CALER;
OFFICER TOMMY; and LT. JONES,
Defendants.

ORDER

After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate

Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which objections have been filed. (Doc. no.
79.) Plaintiff does not offer any new information, evidence, or argument that warrants a

deviation from the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Accordingly, the Court

OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge as the opinion of the Court. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES
Plaintiffs claims based on (1) deliberate indifference to safety in violation of the Eighth

Amendment against Defendants Bussey, Caler, and Codey, (2) violation of prison

regulations against all defendants, and (3) supervisory liability against Defendant Bussey.

Additionally, the Court DISMISSES Defendants Bussey, Caler, and Codey from this
case. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Tommy and Jones for
deliberate indifference to safety will go forward.

Plaintiff also claims that he inadvertently named Defendant Terri Bussey as a

defendant and he attempts to reserve "the right to amend and add the warden of security"
once he obtains that warden's name. (Doc. no. 79.) As the Magistrate Judge correctly

found, Plaintiff failed to state a claim against Defendant Bussey under any theory of
liability, including (1) deliberate indifference to safety, (2) violation of prison regulations,
and (3) supervisory liability. (See generally doc. no 21.) If Plaintiff merely intends to
substitute the warden of security's name for Defendant Bussey, this will not change the
analysis and the amendment will be futile.

However, if Plaintiff wishes to amend his

complaint to add the warden of security and assert different allegations against him or
her, then he may do so in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.

SO ORDERED this ixday ofMay, ^J^faDSugusJa, Georgia.

HONORABLE J. RANDAL HALL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SQUTOERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA