Mapp v. Georgia Department of Corrections et al

Filing 67

ORDER denying 48 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting re 63 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 5/9/2013. (loh)

usr
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT].
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION

VLFI

ooi..-€

AL RICO MAPP,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV6II-124

V.

ALTON MOBLEY,
Defendant.

ORDER
After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the undersigned
concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which Objections
have been filed. In his Objections, Defendant contends that the Magistrate Judge
ignored Plaintiffs sworn testimony and adopted Plaintiff's interpretation of the
videotape, which is contrary to some of Plaintiff's other testimony and the depictions in
the videotape. Defendant asserts that the videotape of the incident, as well as the
medical examination conducted immediately following the incident, show that Plaintiffs
sworn contentions and the allegations in his Complaint are false.
A viewing of the three (3) DVDs Defendant submitted in support of his Motion for
Summary Judgment reveals that Plaintiffs assertions regarding the use of force

AO 72A
(Rev. 882)

incident are not accurate.' Plaintiff was not thrown face first into the metal bars,
repeatedly punched in the face, or hit at least five (5) times. However, the video
evidence of the use of force incident does not fully support Defendant's version of
events, either. Defendant asserts that the videotape "shows Plaintiff stopping, officers
struggling, Plaintiff's hands coming free, and the Defendant using one strike to bring
the situation back under control." (Doc. No. 66, p. 6). The undersigned's review of the
use of force incident reveals that Plaintiff was able to get free from his handcuffs during
an escort with three (3) officers, including Defendant, and Plaintiff tried to get away
from the officers. (DVD No. 2, 8:26:28). Plaintiff was then slammed backwards against
the metal bars on two occasions. (Id. at 8:26:32-:34). Plaintiff was taken down to the
concrete floor with some degree of force. (it at 8:26:36). Plaintiff continued to
struggle as the three (3) officers tried to subdue him, and at least one (1) of the officers
was dragging Plaintiff by his arms. Plaintiff was slammed back to the ground. (Id. at
8:26:43). Another officer, who appears to be Defendant, pushed another officer out of
his way in what seemed to be Defendant's desire to get access to Plaintiff.

(it at

8:26:57). Defendant punched Plaintiff in the face once, even though it appears that
Plaintiff was no longer resisting the officers' efforts to subdue him at that point.

L at
d.

8:27:07). Plaintiff was recuffed, brought to his feet, and was then taken to the stairs to
await his escort to the medical unit. (Id. at 8:27:58).
A handheld camera was then used to document Plaintiff's escort to medical.
(DVD No. 3). After a six (6) minute escort to medical, Plaintiff was seated on a table in
the medical unit. (Id. at 6:04). Plaintiff's time in the medical unit lasted less than one

1

The undersigned was unable to access the audio portions of these DVDs, but this access would not
change the undersigned's impressions of the video portions.
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

2

(1) minute, and it appears that his medical examination involved no more than a very
quick, cursory visual examination

(j at 7:02). Although the camera leaves Plaintiffs

face for a very short time on a couple of occasions, the quality of the video evidence is
such that it is impossible for the undersigned to determine what, if any, physical injuries
Plaintiff may have suffered as a result of the use of force incident.
The videotaped evidence reveals that this use of force incident was of relatively
short duration, lasting less than two (2) minutes' time. Nevertheless, this videotaped
evidence also reveals that there are genuine disputes as to facts material to a jury's
determination of whether the amount of force was reasonable or excessive, particularly
in light of the fact that three (3) officers were escorting Plaintiff and the fact that Plaintiff
managed to get out of his handcuffs. Additionally, the other evidence of record shows
that there remain genuine disputes as to whether Defendant acted with a malicious and
sadistic purpose to inflict harm against Plaintiff. The undersigned recognizes that
Plaintiff was taken to the medical unit after this use of force incident, but it is for a jury
to determine whether Plaintiff suffered any injuries as a result of this incident and
whether his claimed injuries are more than de minimis.
Defendant asserts that he set forth several statements of material fact in support
of his Motion for Summary Judgment which have been admitted because Plaintiff did
not specifically counter each of his statements. Plaintiff may not have stated that he
denied or did not agree with certain statements Defendant made in his Statement of
Material Facts; however, Plaintiff's submission of his own Statement of Material Facts
is supported by citations to evidence of record and is an implicit denial of Defendant's
2

Plaintiffs examination could not have taken more than ten to twenty seconds, as someone who
appears to be the nurse is in the background and out of the room in which Plaintiff was seated for at
least half of the minute he was in medical.
AO 72A
(Rev. 882)

3

Statement of Material Fact. Defendant's view of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56
and this Court's Local Rules is rather restrictive. See Fed, R. Civ. P. 56; L.R. 7.1(b),
56.1.
Defendant's Objections are overruled. The Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, as supplemented herein, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

SO ORDERED, this

f

day of

, 2013.

r
,l
B. AV1NT EDEN FIELD,
UNITED STATES D1SJI PCT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT' OF GEORGIA

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

4