Jenkins v. Hutcheson

Filing 120

ORDER overruling the parties' Objections; adopting the 103 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as the opinion of the Court; granting in part Defendant's 84 Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's excessive force claims regarding incidents three (3) and four (4), but denying in part Defendant's 84 Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's excessive force claims regarding incidents one (1) and two (2); and reminding the parties to follow the directives set forth in the Magistrate Judge's 103 Order dated June 22, 2016.. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 8/25/2016. (jah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION

ADRIAN JENKINS,

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:14-cv-81

v.

JOSEPH HUTCHESON,
Defendant.
ORDER

Presently before the Court are the parties' Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation, (docs. 105, 106). After an independent and de novo review of the entire
record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation,

(doc. 103).

Accordingly, the parties' Objections are OVERRULED, and the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
BACKGROUND

This case revolves around four instances in which Defendant used force against Plaintiff

at Georgia State Prison, ("GSP"), which are set out fully in the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation. (Doc. 103.) In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that each instance in which
Defendant used force was unwarranted and excessive, (doc. 1, p. 14), while Defendant maintains

that he employed only the amount of force necessary to address Plaintiffs noncompliance with
his orders and to restore order in the prison (doc. 84-1, pp. 16-21).

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on July 31, 2014.

After the requisite frivolity review,

Plaintiffs Complaint was served against Defendant based upon Plaintiffs assertions that
Defendant used an excessive amount of force against Plaintiff. (Doc. 10.) Defendant then filed

a Motion to Dismiss, which the Court denied. (Doc. 42.) Defendant filed the instant Motion for

Summary Judgment on September 30, 2015. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court
dismiss two of Plaintiff s four excessive force claims, while allowing the remaining claims to
proceed. (Doc. 103.)
DISCUSSION

Each of the

parties filed

Objections to the

Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation, (docs. 105, 106). Plaintiff objects that the Magistrate Judge failed to take into

account video evidence of Defendant's use of force against him and, therefore, failed to consider
all of the pertinent facts. (Doc. 105, p. 2.) The Court previously addressed this contention in its
Order dated October 28, 2015, (doc. 92). In that Order, the Court denied Plaintiffs Motion to

Compel production of video footage of the event from the prison surveillance camera, finding
that "Defendant cannot produce what does not exist." (IdL at p. 5.) Furthermore, because the

Magistrate Judge, in reviewing Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, viewed the facts in
a light most favorable to Plaintiff, review of the video footage of the events—if that footage
exists—would be superfluous. Plaintiffs Objections are, therefore, OVERRULED.

Defendant objects that (1) the statute of limitations bars Plaintiffs claims; (2) the

Magistrate Judge failed to properly weigh the evidence as to Plaintiffs excessive force claims1;
and (3) the Magistrate Judge improperly found that Plaintiff suffered more than de minimis

injuries.2 (Doc. 106, p. 6.) The Magistrate Judge addressed and correctly analyzed all of these

1 Defendant contends that the Magistrate Judge improperly weighed the five Campbell factors as to
incidents one and two only. As to incidents three and four—the claims for which the Magistrate Judge
recommended dismissal—Defendant does not object that the Magistrate Judge improperly weighed the
factors.

2 Notably, the parties dispute the extent and severity of Plaintiffs injuries. (Doc. 103, p. 26.) Of course,
on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court must resolve all factual disputes in Plantiffs
favor. Accordingly, at this stage, a finding in Defendant's favor that Plaintiff suffered only de minimis

arguments at length.

Thus, for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation, Defendant's Objections are OVERRULED.
CONCLUSION

Consequently, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 84).

The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for

Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's excessive force claims regarding incidents three (3) and four

(4), but DENIES Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs excessive force
claims regarding incidents one (1) and two (2). The parties are reminded to follow the directives
set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Order dated June 22, 2016. (Doc. 103.)

SO ORDERED, this &2&ffay ofAugust, 2016.

HONO^ABLE^TRANQAL HALL
UNITEDOTATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHS DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

injuries would be inappropriate. Furthermore, "[ojther courts have found that injuries similar to those
alleged by Plaintiffto be adequate to recover under the PLRA." See, e.g., Munn v. Tonev, 433 F.3d
1087, 1089 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding that plaintiffs allegations of headaches, cramps, nosebleeds, and
dizziness, resulting from denial of prescribed blood pressure treatment, survived Section 1997e(e)
review); Cotnev v. Bowers. No. 2:03-CV-1181-WKW, 2006 WL 2772775, at *7 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 26,
2006) (finding that plaintiffs allegations of bruised ribs after use offeree surmounted Section 1997e(e)'s

bar, as plaintiff put forth evidence from which a jury could determine that his physical injuries were more
than de minimis). (Id. at pp. 26-27.) Moreover, "[a]n inmate who is gratuitously beaten by guards does
not lose his ability to pursue an excessive force claim merely because he has the good fortune to escape
without serious injury." Wilkins v.. Gaddv, 559 U.S. 34, 37 (2010).