Myton v. Deal et al

Filing 17

ORDER overruling 16 Objection to Report and Recommendations filed by Abraham Judah Myton. The 15 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations remains the Order of the Court. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 1/6/2021. (pts)

Download PDF
Case 6:19-cv-00032-JRH-BWC Document 17 Filed 01/06/21 Page 1 of 2 1) i L. U.S.DlSl n- i! ! COURT AUGUSTA DIV. I> 202! JAH -b P !■- U2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTIHCT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION SO.DiSi. Or 'SA, ABRAHAM JUDAH MYTON, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:19-cv-32 Plaintiff, V. LT. TERRY MO YE; and LT. MICI-IAEL GOYETTE, Defendants. ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs “Opposition to Motion to Dismiss.’' Doc. 16. The Court construes Plaintiffs filing as an Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation entered on November 18, 2020, doc. 12, and adopted as the Order of this Court on December 21, 2020, doc. 15. For the reasons set forth below, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objection. The Court’s December 21, 2020 Order remains the Order of the Court. Doc. 15. The Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff stated cognizable claims against Defendants Terry Moye and Michael Goette and ordered service of Plaintiffs Complaint against these two Defendants. Docs. 12, 14. Therefore, these claims remain pending. The Magistrate Judge recommended, and the Court dismissed, various other claims. Docs. 12, 15. Plaintiff Objection is difficult to decipher. It is unclear whether Plaintiff understands some claims remain pending and the Court has directed service of those claims. Plaintiff only recites ’ No objections to the Report and Recommendations were fi led within the required time period. Although Plaintiffs instant fi ling was submitted weeks past the deadline and is captioned as “Opposition to Motion to Dismiss,” it invokes 28 U.S.C. § 636, demonstrating Plaintiff intended to object to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. The Court construes it as such and considers the substance of the Objection. Case 6:19-cv-00032-JRH-BWC Document 17 Filed 01/06/21 Page 2 of 2 general Eighth Amendment legal principles without explaining why the Report and Recommendation is incorrect. Doc. 16 at 1. As the Magistrate Judge stated, Plaintiff does not state sufficient facts in his Complaint to establish Defendants Deal, Adams, Dasher, and Bruce were more than negligent in their alleged failure to protect Plaintiff from an attack. A mere negligent failure to protect an inmate from attack” is insufficient to impose 42 U.S.C. § 1983 liability on a prison official. Marbury v. Warden, 936 F.3d 1227, 1238 (11th Cir. 2019). Additionally, Plaintiff has not stated plausible claims for monetary damages against Defendants sued in their official capacities. State officials sued in their official capacities are generally immune from suit for monetaiy' damages. Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona. 520 U.S. 43, 69 n.24 (1997); Hafer v. Melo. 502 U.S. 21, 27 (1991); Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police. 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985). Plaintiff does not explain why these two legal principles should not apply to his case. Therefore, even considering Plaintiff s Objection, it does not alter the decision to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Doc. 15. Plaintiff still has not stated cognizable claims against Defendants Deal, Adams, Dasher, and Bruce or claims for monetary damages against any Defendant sued in his official capacity. For these reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objection, doc. 16, and the December 21, 2020 Order remains the Order of the Court, SO ORDERED,this day of January, 2021. ALL, GHIEF JUDGE UNITEQ/STATES DISTRICT COURT ERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA S 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?