Mapp v. Jarriel et al

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING re 20 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Jarriel, Willimas, Paul, and Fowler are dismissed. Plaintiff's monetary damages claims against Defendants Johnson, Sapp, and Waters in their official capacities are dismissed. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 4/15/2013. (loh)

FILE 0
U.S.£flST
23 APR 15 L
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGF
STATESBORO DIVISION

0L. (

AL RICO MAPP,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV612-103

Im
DON JARRIEL; JOHN PAUL; DOUG
WILLIAMS; WENDELL FOWLER;
JAVAKA JOHNSON; JARVIS SAPP;
and Officer WATERS,
Defendants.

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. Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the
claims against Defendants Jarriel, Williams, Paul, and Fowler be dismissed. In support
of that objection, Plaintiff asks the Court to recognize that "acts which are in
implementation of an intentional policy, . . . formal or informal, acknowledged or
vigorously denied" create a cause of action when the "governing body has worked
constitutional deprivation" pursuant to the policy. (Doc. No. 24, p. 2) (quoting City of
Cave Spring v. Mason, 252 Ga. 3, 4-5, 310 S.E.2d 892, 893-94 (1984) (emphasis

AO 72A
(Rev, 8/82)

supplied by the undersigned to properly conform the quote to the original). Plaintiff has
cited no intentional policy Defendants Jarriel, Williams, Paul, or Fowler allegedly
implemented which caused the alleged constitutional violations.
Second, Plaintiff states that supervisory officials may be liable under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 if the supervisors are "well aware of a 'history of widespread abuse' and fail[ Jto
correct alleged violations." (Doc. No. 24, p. 3) (quoting Braddy v. Fla. Dep't of Labor &
Employment Sec., 133 F.3d 797, 802 (11th Cir. 1998)). Plaintiffs counsel asserts that
this cause of action is Plaintiff's third case alleging excessive use of force by guards at
Georgia State Prison and the fifth cause of action counsel has been involved with
concerning excessive use of force and failure to protect claims allegedly occurring at
Georgia State Prison. While the Court acknowledges these assertions as true, Plaintiff
has not presented facts which reveal that Defendants Jarriel, Williams, Paul, or Fowler
were aware of these allegations at the time Plaintiff avers he was subjected to the use
of force in this case.
Plaintiff attempts to show that supervisory liability may be imposed upon
Defendants Jarriel, Williams, Paul, and Fowler. However, Plaintiff did not bring a claim
for supervisory liability in his Complaint. Even overlooking that failure, Plaintiffs
allegations do not state a claim for supervisory liability. "[S]upervisory liability is
appropriate under § 1983 either when the supervisor personally participates in the
alleged constitutional violation or when there is a causal connection between actions of
the supervising official and the alleged constitutional violation. Facts sufficient to
establish a causal connection include those which support an inference that the
supervisor directed the subordinates to act unlawfully or knew that the subordinates

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

2

would act unlawfully and failed to stop them from doing so." Young v. Nichols, 398 F.
App'x 511, 515 (11th Cir. 2010) (internal punctuation and citations omitted). Plaintiff
does not allege that Defendants Jarriel, Williams, Paul, or Fowler personally participated
in the alleged use of excessive force. Plaintiff does not allege that Williams, Paul, or
Fowler directed the alleged actions of their subordinates. Plaintiff cites to a 1994 Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals case for a three-step analysis used to establish supervisory
liability. (Doc. No. 24, p. 6). As counsel is aware, cases arising in the Fourth Circuit are
of no more than persuasive authority to this Court. In addition, it seems Plaintiff argues
that a history of widespread abuse can result in the defendants' knowledge that their
subordinates would act unlawfully, the second method of establishing a causal
connection under the Young test. As noted above, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts
tending to show that there was a history of widespread abuse at Georgia State Prison of
which the supervisory officials were aware. The only fact presented by Plaintiff is that
he has filed three (3) lawsuits, which is insufficient to "show[ ] that [he] is entitled to
relief" against Defendants Jarriel, Williams, Paul, or Fowler based on knowledge that
their subordinates would act unlawfully.

FED. R.

Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

Plaintiff also files an objection based on a qualified immunity argument.
However, the Magistrate Judge made no mention of qualified immunity in his Report
and Recommendation, nor would he in his initial frivolity review of Plaintiffs Complaint.
Plaintiff's Objections are overruled. The Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, as supplemented herein, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.
Plaintiff claims against Defendants Jarriel, Williams, Paul, and Fowler are DISMISSED.

3
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

Plaintiff's monetary damages claims against Defendants Johnson, Sapp, and Waters in
their official capacities and his "du,Protess" claim are DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED, this

day of

2013.

B.VAVANT EDE1\1FIELD JUE
UNITED STATES
COURT
DISTY(GEORGIA
SOUTHERN DISTRICT

AU 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

4