Claiborne v. Shaw et al

Filing 52

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Chief District Judge Daniel P. Jordan, III on 02/24/2020 (KNS) (copy mailed to Plaintiff)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
TOMMIEL QUENPONTA
CLAIBORNE
V.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-734-DPJ-FKB

WARDEN F. SHAW, ET AL

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

This action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 is before the Court on the Report and
Recommendation [51] of Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball.
Plaintiff Tommiel QuenPonta Claiborne filed this suit against several employees of the
East Mississippi Correctional Facility (“EMCF”) in Meridian, Mississippi, specifically Warden
F. Shaw, Captain Michael Jones, Corrections Officer Donna McWilliams, Unit Manager Tony
Donald, and Vincent McAlister. Claiborne alleges that in July 2017, Defendant McWilliams
informed him that EMCF would be testing the sprinkler system and that he should place any
property in his cell under his bed. Pl.’s Compl. [1] at 4. Claiborne says he told McWilliams that
he had papers that proved his innocence in his cell and that he should therefore be allowed to
take them outside of his cell during the test. Id. McWilliams did not allow him to leave his cell
or take the papers out of the cell. Id. As a result, the papers were ruined. Id. at 5. Based on this
incident, Claiborne brought claims for violation of his right to due process and violation of the
Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Id. Shaw, Jones, Donald,
and McAlister were not involved in this incident, but were named as defendants because they
were the supervisors on duty at the time. Tr. [34] at 8, 11.
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment [43] seeking dismissal of the case, and
Claiborne filed a motion seeking to subpoena certain witnesses to appear at a deposition [46].

Judge Ball recommended granting Defendants’ summary-judgment motions because (1) “there is
no vicarious liability under section 1983,” under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436
U.S. 658, 691 (1978); (2) Claiborne’s habeas petition in his related case was dismissed, showing
that the incident in this case did cause any “actual injury”; and (3) his Eighth-Amendment claim
was not viable due to no “substantial risk of serious harm.” R&R [51] at 5–8. Judge Ball also
recommended denying Claiborne’s subpoena-related motion because it was “filed after both the
discovery deadline and the motion deadline” had expired. Id. at 8. Claiborne did not file an
objection to the R&R, and the time to do so has passed.
The Court finds the Report and Recommendation [51] should be adopted as the opinion
of the Court; Defendants summary-judgment motion [43] is granted and Claiborne’s motion to
subpoena deposition witnesses [46] is denied. The complaint is dismissed with prejudice. A
separate judgment will be entered in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 24th day of February, 2020.
s/ Daniel P. Jordan III
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE