Hillhouse v. Spann et al

Filing 72

ORDER denying 52 Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendant Lacey; denying 54 Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendant Lacey; denying 63 Motion to Dismiss as to Defendant Lacey; denying 65 Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendant Lacey ; denying 65 Motion for Hearing as to Defendant Lacey; deferring ruling on 52 Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendant Spann; deferring ruling on 54 Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendant Spann; deferring ruling on 63 Motion to Dismis s as to Defendant Spann; deferring ruling on 65 Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendant Spann; deferring ruling on 65 Motion for Hearing as to Defendant Spann; denying 66 Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant Lacey; denying with preju dice 66 Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant Spann; adopting 69 and 70 Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge. The Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball is hereby adopted as the finding of this Court. Copies of the motions for default judgment [52, 54, 65] will be mailed to Spann, and he is given until August 15, 2012 to respond to the motions. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on July 23, 2012. (SP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION
GREGORY SCOTT HILLHOUSE

PLAINTIFF

V.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11CV101 DPJ-FKB

JAMES SPANN, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

This § 1983 action is before the Court on two Report and Recommendations [69, 70]
addressing five motions [52, 54, 63, 65, 66]. Plaintiff Gregory Scott Hillhouse claims that two
prison guards, James Spann and Eric Lacey, extorted money from him in exchange for
protections from other inmates at Central Mississippi Correctional Facility.
In the first Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball recommended
denial of Plaintiff’s motions for default judgment [52, 54, 65] as to Lacey and deferring ruling as
to Spann. The docket does not reflect unequivocally that Lacey has been served with process.
Spann was served on May 17, 2011, has not filed an answer, but did file a motion for
appointment of counsel [53] and a motion to dismiss [71]. Judge Ball suggested that Defendant
Spann be given an opportunity to respond to the motions for default judgment. Hillhouse has not
filed an Objection, and the time to do so has now passed. Judge Ball’s Recommendation [69] is
adopted. Copies of the motions for default judgment [52, 54, 65] will be mailed to Spann, and he
is given until August 15, 2012 to respond to the motions. Failure to respond may result in the
granting of the motions for default judgment.
In the second Report and Recommendation, Judge Ball considered the motion to dismiss
[63] filed by Christopher Epps, Emmitt Sparkman, and Margaret Bingham (MDOC Defendants).
Judge Ball recommended granting the motion [63] of the MDOC Defendants. Judge Ball also

recommended denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [66] as it relates to Defendant
Lacey (who has not been served) and denying without prejudice the motion as to Defendant
Spann—allowing Plaintiff to seek summary judgment at a later time, if the motion for default
judgment is ultimately denied. Hillhouse has not filed an Objection, and the time to do so has
now passed. Judge Ball’s Recommendation [70] is adopted.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Report and Recommendations [69, 70] of
United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball be, and the same is hereby, adopted as the finding
of this Court.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 23rd day of July, 2012.
s/ Daniel P. Jordan III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2