Shaw v. Carson et al

Filing 65

ORDER ADOPTING in part 63 Report and Recommendations, finding as moot 30 Motion to Dismiss filed by Kevin Woods, Dotson, C. Stevens, T. Carter, C. Barella and 31 Motion to Dismiss filed by Kerry Carson, granting 64 Motion to Dism iss filed by Jack Ivan Shaw. Plaintiff's excessive force claim against Defendant Carson is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to lift the stay in this case and the parties are reminded of the Court's Standing Order 62 . Signed by District Judge R. Stan Baker on 3/26/2024. (pts)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
JACK IVAN SHAW,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:21-cv-204

v.
KERRY CARSON,
Defendant.
ORDER
The Magistrate Judge issued a Report, recommending the Court grant Defendant Carson’s
Partial Motion to Dismiss and deny as moot former Defendants Barella, Carter, Dotson, Stevens,
and Woods’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. 63.) In lieu of Objections, Plaintiff has filed a Motion to
Voluntarily Dismiss 1 and notes Defendant Carson did not “actually take part in any physical
restraint against” him. (Doc. 64, p. 1.)
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s
Motion and DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendant
Carson. The Court REJECTS as moot the portion of the Magistrate Judge’s March 6, 2024
Report and Recommendation concerning Defendant Carson’s Partial Motion to Dismiss, (doc. 63).
The Court ADOPTS the portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Report concerning Defendants Barella,

1

Although Plaintiff provided no legal basis for his Motion, the Court construes Plaintiff’s Motion as being
made pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “Federal courts sometimes will ignore
the legal label that a pro se litigant attaches to a motion and recharacterize the motion in order to place it
within a different legal category.” Retic v. United States, 215 F. App’x 962, 964 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting
Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381 (2003)). Federal courts “may do so in order to avoid an
unnecessary dismissal, to avoid inappropriately stringent application of formal labeling requirements, or to
create a better correspondence between the substance of a pro se motion’s claim and its underlying legal
basis.” Id. (quoting Castro, 540 U.S. at 381–82).

Carter, Dotson, Stevens, and Woods’ motion to dismiss and DENIES as moot these Defendants’
motion to dismiss. (Doc. 30.) I DIRECT the Clerk of Court to lift the stay imposed in this case,
(doc. 56), and remind the parties of the Court’s Standing Order, (doc. 62).
SO ORDERED, this 26th day of March, 2024.

R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

2