Conner v. Allen et al

Filing 20

ORDER overruling Plaintiff's objections and ADOPTING 9 Report and Recommendations. The Court dismisses Plaintiff's official capacity claims for monetary damages against all Defendants and his access-to-courts and substantive due process claims against Defendants Jackson, Hutcheson, Allen, and Toole. The case will proceed on the claims as described herein. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 7/23/2018. (pts)

FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

STATESBORO DIVISION

'
'

2013JUL23
CLERK^.:_._.

RASHARD CHARLES CONNER,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:17-cv-10

Plaintiff,
V.

MARTY ALLEN; ROBERT TOOLE; SGT
NORRIS HERNDON; JOSEPH
HUTCHESON; and VALARIE JACKSON,
Defendants.

ORDER

After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the undersigned concurs
with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, (doc. 9), to which Plaintiff filed
Objections,(doc. 11). Plaintiffs Objections are largely a reiteration of the arguments that he has

already presented and which the Magistrate Judge correctly rejected. Specifically, Plaintiff
argues his substantive due process claim should be reinstated because he has "the right not to be
segregated from the general population after it was determined that [he] was the victim of an
attack" when his segregation arose from his erroneously alleged assault on an inmate. Plaintiff
also argues his official capacity claims for monetary damages should be reinstated. (Id.)
As the Magistrate Judge explained in the Report and Recommendation, however.
Plaintiff has no fundamental right arising under substantive due process doctrine to be free from
administrative segregation. (Doc. 9, p. 11.) On the other hand, as correctly found by the
Magistrate Judge, Plaintiffs allegations show that he may have a liberty interest in avoiding

administrative segregation on these facts such that some degree of due process protections attach.
(Id. at pp. 9-10.) Furthermore, the Magistrate Judge rightly dismissed Plaintiffs official

capacity claims for monetary damages because the State of Georgia has not waived its sovereign
immunity in this case. (Id. at p. 5.)

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objections and ADOPTS the Report
and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs official

capacity claims for monetary damages against all Defendants and his access-to-courts and
substantive due process claims against Defendants Jackson, Hutcheson, Allen, and Toole.
However, the Court finds Plaintiff has plausibly stated: Eighth Amendment excessive

force and failure to intervene claims against Defendant Hemdon; First Amendment retaliation
claims against Defendants Jackson, Hutcheson, Allen, and Toole; and Fourteenth Amendment
procedural due process claims against Defendants Jackson, Hutcheson, Allen, and Toole. These
claims shall proceed.
>,
SO ORDERED,this

day of July, 2018.

j.

hall,chief judge ,

UNITE^^TATES DISTRICT COURT
lERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA