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)

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