Bradley v. Hart et al

Filing 44

ORDER ADOPTING the Magistrate Judge's 41 Report and Recommendations, and Granting in part and Denying in part Defendants' 31 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Jackson in his individual capacity remains pending. The remainder of Plaintiff's claims and all other named Defendants are DISMISSED. Plaintiff's Objections are OVERRULED. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 3/9/2015. (csr)

3 the Eniteb btatito flitritt (Court
for the boutbern 30tarta of georata
Waptrolys Dibiion
*
*
*
Plaintiff,
*
*
V.
*
*
J. DARRELL HART, former Warden;
*
SECURITY THREAT GROUP
*
ADMINISTRATION, Ware State Prison;
*
CEDRIC TAYLOR, Warden; ALISA
*
HAMMOCK, Deputy Warden; GABRIEL
ILLA, Sergeant; COI REGINALD JACKSON; *
*
JOHN DOE, Deputy Warden of Security,
*
Valdosta State Prison; OFC. JOHN DOE,
*
Security Threat Group Administration
*
Coordinator, Valdosta State Prison; CLAY
*
TATUM, Warden, Hays State Prison; and
*
OFC. JOHN DOE, Deputy Warden of
*
Security, Hays State Prison,
*
*
Defendants.
SHANNON BRADLEY,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV513-127

ORDER
Presently before the Court are Plaintiff's Objections, dkt.
no. 43, to the Magistrate Judge's January 26, 2015 Report and
Recommendation. Dkt- No. 41. After an independent and de novc'
review of the entire record, the undersigned OVERRULES
Plaintiff's Objections, concurs with the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation, and ADOPTS the Report and

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/2)

Recommendation as the opinion of the Court. Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, as amended, to contest certain conditions of his
confinement while he was housed at: Ware State Prison in
Waycross, Georgia; Georgia State Prison in Reidsville, Georgia;
Valdosta State Prison in Valdosta, Georgia; and Hays State
Prison in Trion, Georgia. Dkt. Nos. 1, 14, 20. The undersigned
directed service of Plaintiff's Complaint, as amended, upon
Defendants Hart, Taylor, Hammock, and lila after Plaintiff
advised the Court as to which related claims he wished to pursue
in this cause of action. Dkt. No. 25.
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss all claims against
them on November 10, 2014. Dkt. No. 31. After briefing from
both parties, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and
Recommendation recommending that Defendant's Motion be granted
in part and denied in part. Dkt. No. 41.
The Magistrate recommended dismissal of several of
Plaintiff's claims. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge
concluded that Plaintiff's allegations that he has been
classified as a security threat and has been placed in
segregation failed to state a cognizable claim for violation of
his procedural or substantive due process rights. Id. pp. 4-8.
AO 72A

(Rev. 8/82)

II

I

2

The Magistrate Judge also determined that Plaintiff failed to
state a claim for First Amendment Retaliation as he had not
engaged in protected speech and had not alleged that his ability
to exercise his right to free speech had been chilled or
otherwise hindered. Id. pp. 8-10. Additionally, the Magistrate
Judge recommended dismissal of Plaintiff's defamation claim as
he could not bring that claim under Section 1983. Id. pp. 1011. The Report and Recommendation also concluded that
Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims
against Defendants Hart, Hammock, and Illa should be dismissed
as it was not plausible that these defendants had subjective
knowledge of an objective risk to Plaintiff's safety and ignored
that risk. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that the Court
reject Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief as his
allegations did not establish the limited circumstances
warranting injunctive relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a) (1) (A).
However, The Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff had
made a plausible claim of deliberate indifference as to
Defendant Jackson. Id. pp. 11-13. The Magistrate noted that
Plaintiff alleges that he told Defendant Jackson that his
celimate threatened to assault him, Defendant Jackson
essentially ignored this information, and Plaintiff's celimate
assaulted him not long after Plaintiff told Defendant Jackson
about this threat. Id. p. 13. The Magistrate also disagreed
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

I

3
3

with Defendant's arguments that Plaintiff had suffered no actual
injury warranting monetary damages and that Defendant Jackson
was entitled to qualified immunity. Id. pp. 15-17.
Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation, and Defendant did not.

In his Objections, Plaintiff essentially offers the same
arguments that he did in his original response to the Motion to
Dismiss. He complains about his placement in administrative
segregation upon his arrival at Hays State Prison due to lack of
bed space. Dkt. No. 43, p. 1. Plaintiff also focuses on his
placement in the Tier II program at Hays State Prison as
punishment after being validated as a gang member approximately
eight (8) months after his arrival at this Prison. Dkt. No. 43,
pp. 1-2. Plaintiff contends he has never assaulted another
person during his period of incarceration and that he was the
victim of an assault while he was housed at Georgia State
Prison. Id. Plaintiff also contends he has never had the
opportunity to defend the allegations of being a gang member or
having an assaultive history. Id. p. 5. Plaintiff further
contends he has shown that his due process rights were violated
and he is entitled to injunctive relief.
In objection to the recommended dismissal of much of his
deliberate indifference claims, Plaintiff asserts Defendants
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

I

4
4

Hammock and lila provided information which reveals that he has
been cleared of the gang validation, yet these Defendants did
not remove this validation from his file. Plaintiff asserts
Defendants Hammock and lila have been "deliberately indifferent
toward[ ]" him. Id. at p. 3.
The Magistrate Judge correctly laid out the law applicable
to Plaintiff's various claims in his Report and Recommendation.
In addition, the Magistrate accurately applied that law to the
same arguments that Plaintiff now raises in his Objections. The
Court need not repeat the Magistrate Judge's analyses and
findings. However, as summarized below, after conducting a de
novo review of this matter, the Court concurs with the
Magistrate's recommendations on Defendants' Motion.
Plaintiff fails to state a plausible due process claim or a
plausible deliberate indifference claim against any of the named
Defendants for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's
Report. Plaintiff's Objections offer no new assertions which
render these claims plausible. The undersigned notes Plaintiff
contends he was placed in the Tier II program at Hays State
Prison as "punishment," but he offers no facts supporting this
contention; rather, Plaintiff posits this contention in a
conclusory manner which cannot serve as the basis of any
plausible claim that his right to due process was violated. As

A072AI
(Rev. 8/82)
Ii

5

the Magistrate Judge noted, conclusory allegations are
insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 41,

P. 6.

Likewise, Plaintiff's contention that Defendants Hammock
and lila were deliberately indifferent toward him wholly fails.
Plaintiff makes no contention that these Defendants were
subjectively aware of any objective threat to his safety or
health or that these defendants ignored such a threat. In
short, Plaintiff fails to state a plausible deliberate
indifference claim against Defendants Hammock or Illa or any
named Defendant other than Defendant Jackson. Id. at pp. 11-14.
CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Objections are
OVERRULED.

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is

adopted as the opinion of the Court. Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss, dkt. no. 31, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim against Defendant
Jackson in his individual capacity remains pending. The
remainder of Plaintiff's claims and all other named Defendants

M,

are DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED, this

t. I L

da y

, 2015.

LISA Gb EY WOOD
-JUDGE
UNITE, S
DISTRICT COURT
SOUTXIERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

I

6