Graves v. Cain et al

Filing 88

RULING AND ORDER Adopting 85 Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge; granting 79 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Cazelot and Vittorio are DISMISSED, with prejudice. Further, summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendant Jones. The Court declines the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction against Defendants. A separate judgment shall issue. Signed by Judge Brian A. Jackson on 4/19/2021. (SWE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RONALD GRAVES

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
BURL CAIN, ET AL.

NO. 16-00292-BAJ-RLB
RULING AND ORDER

Before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 79), filed by
Defendants Wilford Cazelot and Ray Vittorio. The Motion is opposed. (Doc. 81). The
Magistrate Judge has issued a Report And Recommendation (Doc. 85) (“R&R”)
recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on
the basis of qualified immunity and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants
with prejudice. (Doc. 85, p. 10). This recommendation is opposed. (Doc. 86). The
Magistrate Judge also recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against
nonmovant Derek Jones for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies and to
decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction against any and all remaining
Defendants, including inmate Ricky Gary. This recommendation is unopposed.
Plaintiff has two interrelated objections to the R&R. First, Plaintiff argues that
Defendants previously raised qualified immunity as a defense and were denied. See
Graves v. Cain, 2019 WL 5092939 (M.D. La. Oct. 11, 2019); (Doc. 55). Second, Plaintiff
argues that the Magistrate Judge, in granting summary judgment for the
Defendants, improperly credited Defendants’ evidence over Plaintiffs.

1

While the Court did address Defendants’ qualified immunity defense, it was in
the context of a Motion to Dismiss. See (Doc. 43). The Court adopted, in relevant part,
the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation denying Defendants’ Motion because
Plaintiff had “alleged facts tending to show that Defendants . . . were aware of a
substantial risk of harm to the plaintiff and disregarded the risk.” (Doc. 51, p. 9).
Defendants have re-urged their qualified immunity defense on summary judgment
and argue that Plaintiff has failed to establish or point to specific facts in the record
that support the allegations in Plaintiff’s pleading. (Doc. 79-1, p. 9). Because
Plaintiff’s opposition merely relies on his unverified complaint rather than citing to
admissible evidence that disputes Defendants’ claims, the Magistrate Judge
recommended granting Defendants qualified immunity. (Doc. 85, p. 8). Therefore, the
Magistrate Judge has not improperly made a credibility determination. Rather,
Plaintiff has failed to cite to any specific facts or evidence in the record that would
allow a reasonable trier of fact to find in his favor. See (Doc. 81); FED. R. CIV. P.
56(c)(1).
Having carefully considered the underlying Complaint, the instant Motions,
and related filings, the Court APPROVES the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, and ADOPTS it as the Court’s opinion herein.
Accordingly,

2

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’ Motion for Summary Judgment is
GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Cazelot and Vittorio are

DISMISSED, with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that summary judgment is GRANTED in favor
of Defendant Jones.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines the exercise of
supplemental jurisdiction against Defendants.
A separate judgment shall issue.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 19th day of April, 2021

______________________________________
JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

3