Hayles v. Jarriel et al

Filing 173

ORDER granting 166 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b); granting 171 Motion to Enforce Judgment. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 3/29/2012. (loh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION
WINSTON HAYLES,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV6I0-031
DON JARRIEL; TARMARSHE SMITH;
KAREN DEKLE; CASSANDRA
HOWER; and BARRY SMITH, M.D.,
Defendants

ORDER
Defendants Don Jarriel and Cassandra Hower and Defendant Barry Smith
("Movants") filed Motions for Summary Judgment. United States Magistrate Judge
James E. Graham recommended that the Motions be granted by Report dated
November 18, 2011. (Doc. No. 155). The undersigned adopted this recommendation
as the opinion of the Court by Order dated January 17, 2012. (Doc. No. 164). Movants
have now filed Motions for Final Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(b).
A final judgment is "one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves
nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Plum p v. Riley, No. 2:07-cv1014-MEF, 2009 WL 207147, at *6 (M.D. Ala. July 13, 2009). "[H]owever, an order
adjudicating fewer than all the claims in a suit, or adjudicating the rights and liabilities of
fewer than all the parties, is not a final judgment." Id. Rule 54 provides,
in relevant part:

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

When an action presents more than one claim for relief--whether as a
claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim--or when multiple
parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to
one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly
determines that there is no just reason for delay.
FED. R. Civ. P. 54(b). A "two-step analysis' is employed "in determining whether a

partial final judgment may properly be certified under Rule 54(b). First, the court must
determine that its final judgment is, in fact, both 'final' and a 'judgment." Llo yd Noland
Found., Inc. v. Tenet Health Care Cor p ., 483 F.3d 773, 777 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal
citation omitted). To be "'final", a court's determination must be "an ultimate disposition
of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action, and a 'judgment'
in the sense that it is a decision upon a cognizable claim for relief." Id. (quoting Sears,
Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 436 (1956)). Once the court finds its decision
is a final judgment, the court "must then determine that there is no 'just reason for delay'
in certifying it as final and immediately appealable." Id. (internal citation omitted). "The
district court must act as a 'dispatcher' and exercise its discretion in certifying partial
judgments in consideration of 'judicial administrative interests'—including 'the historic
federal policy against piecemeal appeals'— and 'the equities involved.'" jj at 778
(quoting Sears, 351 U.S. at 438).
Here, the undersigned's granting of summary judgment in favor of Movants is a
final judgment within the meaning of Rule 54(b). Defendants Hower and Smith were
granted summary judgment on Plaintiffs deliberate indifference claims. Defendant
Jarriel was granted summary judgment due to Plaintiffs failure to create a genuine
dispute as to any fact material to his contention that Defendant Jarriel was personally
liable for any alleged constitutional violations of his subordinates. Plaintiffs claims

AO 72A
(Rev. 8182)

2

against Tarmarshe Smith and Karen Dekle remain pending and are based on Plaintiffs
assertions that Tarmarshe Smith used excessive force against him and Karen Dekle
failed to intervene.' Plaintiffs remaining claims are not "substantially similar" to or
"functionally part of' his claims against Movants. Plum p , 2009 WL 2074147, at *7
Thus, the rulings in favor of Movants are "final judgments" within the meaning of Rule
54(b).
Having found the granting of summary judgments in favor of Movants represent
final judgments, the undersigned finds no just reason in delaying the entry of final
judgment in favor of Defendants Hower, Barry Smith, and Jarriel. Movants' Motions for
Final Judgment are hereby GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter final
judgment in favor of Defendants Cassandra Hower, Barry Smith, and Don Jarriel.
Plaintiff's claims against Tarmarshe Smith and Karen Dekie shall remain pending.
Counsel for Defendant Barry Smith has filed a Bill of Costs seeking the recovery
of costs in the amount of $990.46. (Doc. No. 165). Plaintiff shall file any desired
objections to this Bill of Costs within fourteen (14) days of this Order.
SO ORDERED, this

day of

, 2012.

B. AVANT ED FJLD, JJJDGE
UNITED STA1 t1JISTR1CT COURT
SOUTHERN[ TRICT OF GEORGIA

The undersigned denied the motion for summary judgment filed by Tarmarshe Smith and Karen Dekie.
(Doc. Nos. 76, 93).
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

3