Spires v. Paul et al

Filing 183

ORDER ADOPTING the 179 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS as the Court's opinion and overruling Defendants' 181 Objections; denies Defendants' 134 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 07/23/2018. (jlh)

MLcD

U.S. OlSTRiCT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION

AUGUSTA D!Y.

28I8JUL23 AHI|:|3
CLERK

SO.

GA.

CURTIS SPIRES, a/k/a JIMMIE CANUPP,
JR.,

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:1 l-cv-45

V.

JOHN PAUL; and OFFICER TAMMIE
THOMAS,
Defendants.

ORDER

Presently before the Court are Defendants' Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation. (Doc. 181.) After an independent and de novo review of the entire

record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation,
(doc. 179). The Magistrate Judge has already addressed, in great detail, the arguments raised in

Defendants' Objections. For example. Defendants state that "[a] repeated error of the courts has
been 'to define clearly established law at a high level of generality.' Kisela v. Hughes. 138 S. Ct.

1148, 1152 (2018)." (Doc. 181, p. 5.) However, the Magistrate Judge expressly discussed
Kisela and this quote in particular. (Doc. 179, p. 8 n.5 ("Kisela involved the Fourth Amendment
and excessive force—an area in which 'specificity is especially important.' . . . However, this is
not a Fourth Amendment excessive force case.").)

Furthermore, Defendants attempt to re-litigate the issue of whether an Eighth
Amendment violation occurred. (Doc. 181, pp. 6-7.) As the Magistrate Judge stated, the

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals already found that "Defendants 'committed a clear violation

of[Plaintiffs] rights under the Eighth Amendment'("llthCir. Op. II. pp. 13, 15[.])." (Doc. 179,

p. 6.) Any argument to the contrary has no effect.

Winn-Dixie Stores. Inc. v. Doleencom.

LLC. 881 F.3d 835, 844 (11th Cir. 2018)("[A] district court cannot amend, alter, or refuse to
apply an appellate court's mandate ....[T]he mandate must be followed.").
Defendants also continue to rely on Hall v. Plumber Official. 446 F. App'x 184(11th Cir.

2011), despite the Magistrate Judge specifically distinguishing and explaining the inapplicability
of Hall to this case. (Doc. 181, pp. 6-7; Doc. 179, pp. 7-8 n. 4.) While Defendants could have
described how the Magistrate Judge's analysis was in error, they failed to do so and simply
reiterate the arguments raised in their supplemental briefs.

Finally, Defendants misconstrue both the Magistrate Judge's analysis of Ort v. White.
813 F.2d 318, 326 (11th Cir. 1987), and the case itself. Defendants claim that '*Ort v. White ...
actually approved the withholding of water as a disciplinary sanction." (Doc. 181, p. 7.)
However, Ort does not "clearly establish" such a sweeping conclusion. As the Magistrate Judge
(and the Eleventh Circuit in Ort and the Supreme Court in Hone v. Pelzer. 536 U.S. 730(2002))

pointed out, the prison officer in Ort received qualified immunity because he only withheld water
as a measure to ensure immediate "compliance with a reasonable prison rule." (Doc. 179, p. 9.)

"'[P]hysical abuse directed at a prisoner after he terminates his resistance to authority would
constitute an actionable eighth amendment violation.' Hope. 536 U.S. at 743." (Id) The

Magistrate Judge likened the current case to punishment after termination, and Defendants failed
to address how this analysis was in error.

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Defendants' Objections and ADOPTS the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, as supplemented herein, as the opinion of the
Court. The Court DENIES Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment,(doc. 134).

SO ORDERED,this/^r?^av ofJuly, 2018.

J. RANDA^^LL,CHIEF JUDGE

IITED^ATES DISTRICT COURT

SOtrraE^ DISTRICT OF GEORGIA