BAYSE v. WARD et al

Filing 130

ORDER Overruling Defendants' objections and ADOPTING 123 Report and Recommendations. 87 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by ROBBIN AMANDA BAYSE is denied; 93 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Davis, Young, Clements is denied; 102 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Ted Philbin, Smith, SHELTON, Gaines, Harvey is granted as to Defendants Gaines and Smith. The case shall proceed to trial as to Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Clements, Davis, Young, Philbin, Harvey and Shelton. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 3/26/2024. (pts)

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

ROBBIN AMANDA BAYSE,a/k/a
ROBERT BAYSE,

Plaintiff,
CV 122-024

V.

TED PHILBIN, et al..
Defendants.

ORDER

After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), to which objections have been filed. (Doc.

nos. 127, 128.) One aspect of the objections merits brief discussion.

Defendants Philbin, Shelton, and Harvey argue the question "for qualified immunity
purposes is whether there was, at the relevant time, clearly established law that 'social

transitioning accommodations,' such as requested by Plaintiff, were required to be given for
the gender dysphoria condition." (Doc. no. 128, p. 3.) However, there need not exist a case
requiring specific treatment for a particular diagnosis. Greason v. Kemp. 891 F.2d 829, 834

(11th Cir. 1990) ("[0]ne simply cannot say that a prisoner has a clearly established

constitutional right to adequate psychiatric care but that that right is not violated by a particular
treatment amounting to grossly inadequate care unless some prior court has expressly so held
on 'materially similar' facts. Such an approach would add an unwarranted degree of rigidity

to the law of qualified immunity.")) see also Hope v. Pelzer. 536 U.S. 730, 741 (2002)

("[0]fficials can still be on notice that their conduct violates established law even in novel
factual circumstances.").

In sum, the Court OVERRULES Defendants' objections, ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion, DENIES Plaintiffs motion for
summary judgment,(doc. no. 87), DENIES Defendants Clements, Davis, and Young's motion
for summaryjudgment,(doc. no. 93), GRANTS Defendants Philbin, Shelton, Harvey, Gaines,
and Smith's motion for summary judgment as to Defendants Gaines and Smith,(doc. no. 102),
and DENIES Defendants Philbin, Shelton, Harvey, Gaines, and Smith's motion for summary
judgment as to Defendants Philbin, Shelton, and Harvey, (doc. no. 102). The case shall
proceed to trial as to Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Clements, Davis, Young, Philbin,
Harvey, and Shelton.

SO ORDERED this

day of March, 2024, at Augusta, Georgia.

tLL, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITEtfSjTATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA