Lunsford vs Briddick et al

Filing 52

ORDER ADOPTING 51 Report and Recommendation, except as specified, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 45 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Sergeant Bob, J Briddick, T Court, Sergeant Bob. Defendant "Sergeant Bob" Richert is granted summary judgment and terminated as a party. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 2/22/2012. (mmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TYRONE LUNSFORD,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SERGEANT JEFF BRIDDICK,
DEPUTY TONY COURT, and
SERGEANT ROBERT RICHERT,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 09-cv-0575-MJR-SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
Before the Court is the Report of United States Magistrate Judge Stephen C.
Williams (Doc. 51) recommending that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants
Sergeant Jeff Briddick, Deputy Tony Court and Sergeant Robert Richert (Doc. 45) be granted in
part and denied in part.
On July 29, 2009, Plaintiff Tyrone Lunsford, formerly an inmate in the Madison
County Jail, initiated this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. According to the complaint (Doc. 1), on December 1, 2008, Plaintiff’s bunk detached
from the wall and collapsed to the floor, causing Plaintiff to hit his head and back, and to loose
consciousness. It is alleged that Defendant Sergeant Robert Richert allowed Plaintiff to lay on the
floor for over an hour before summoning medical help. Plaintiff was taken to the hospital,
accompanied by Defendants Sergeant Jeff Briddick and Deputy Tony Court. It is further alleged
that, after doctors released Plaintiff, Briddick and Court utilized excessive force to remove
Plaintiff to a vehicle for transport back to the Jail. Upon his return to the Jail, Defendant Richert
1

placed Plaintiff in “an isolation cell,” and denied his grievances and/or requests for further medical
care. The Court has construed the complaint as asserting a claim against Defendants Briddick and
Court for use of excessive force, and a claim against Defendant Richert for deliberate indifference
to a serious medical need. See Doc. 5.
On May 13, 2011, Defendants Briddick, Court and Richert moved for summary
judgment (Doc. 45).

Defendants argue that they cannot be held liable because the evidence

establishes that they behaved in a reasonable manner, under the circumstances, because Plaintiff
was refusing to leave the hospital, despite having been discharged. In addition, Defendant
Richert asserts that the evidence fails to establish that he acted with deliberate indifference to
Plaintiff’s serious medical needs; rather, the evidence shows that Richert responded promptly to a
panic alarm and summoned medical assistance and EMS.
Plaintiff, by and through appointed counsel, responded that genuine issues of
material fact precluded summary judgment (Docs. 46, 47). Relative to the excessive force claim,
Plaintiff cited his own conflicting testimony regarding the events at issue, as well as the deposition
testimony of Captain Donald Bunt, characterizing Briddick and Court’s behavior as excessive
force. With respect to the deliberate indifference claim, Plaintiff again cited his conflicting
version of events, as well as the hospital discharge instructions directing Plaintiff to follow up with
his primary doctor as needed.
In reply, Defendants noted that credibility determinations are not appropriate at this
stage, and Plaintiff has otherwise failed to counter their documentary evidence and sufficiently
establish his claims; instead, Plaintiff offers mere speculation. See Doc. 48.

2

On January 17, 2012, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), Magistrate Judge
Stephen C. Williams submitted a detailed Report (Doc. 51) recommending that the undersigned
Judge grant in part and deny in part Defendants= motion for summary judgment (Doc. 45). More
specifically, Judge Williams recommended that Defendant Richert be granted summary judgment,
but Defendants Briddick and Court be denied summary judgment because material issues of fact
exist regarding whether they used excessive force. No party filed objections to Judge Williams
Report and Recommendation. No extension of the deadline for objecting was sought, and the
period in which such objections may be filed has expired.
Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b), this Court need not conduct de novo
review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985); Video Views Inc., v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797
F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, the undersigned District Judge ADOPTS in its entirety Judge
Williams’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 51), and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN
PART Defendants= motion for summary judgment (Doc. 45), in that only Defendant Sergeant
Robert Richert is GRANTED summary judgment. The claims against Defendants Sergeant Jeff
Briddick and Deputy Tony Court shall proceed. Judgment in favor of Defendant Richert will be
entered after all claims against all defendants are resolved
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 22, 2012
s/ Michael J. Reagan
United States District Judge
Southern District of Illinois

3