Wells v. The Mississippi Dept. of Corrections et al
ORDER adopting 42 Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball as set out in the Order. Defendants Hall, King, Banks, Lewis, Brooks, Sparks, Ross, and Smith are dismissed; Wells's failure-to-provide-medical-care claim is also dismissed. Wells's excessive-force claims against James Fillyaw, Carl Arnold, Tyler Smith, and Lacedrick Fletcher should go forward. Signed by Chief District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on November 17, 2021. (SP)
Case 3:20-cv-00040-DPJ-FKB Document 45 Filed 11/17/21 Page 1 of 2
-NITED STATES DISTRCT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-CV-40-DPJ-FKB
PELICIA HALL, COMMISSIONER
OF MDOC, ET AL.
This action by a state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is before the Court on the
Report and Recommendation  of Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball. Petitioner Frederick Wells
alleges that on August 30, 2019, prison officials ordered him to strip naked, required him to
crawl on the floor, kicked him, beat him, and forced him to walk barefoot outside on a road
paved with sharp rocks. R&R  at 2. Wells sued various officials alleging excessive force,
failure to provide medical treatment, and improper adjudication of rules-violations reports
(RVRs) arising out the incident. Judge Ball held a Spears hearing (at which Wells testified) and
concluded that several claims and Defendants should be dismissed. R&R  at 1. The R&R
invited Wells to file an Objection; to date, no Objection has been filed.1
First, Judge Ball recommended dismissing several Defendants that had no direct role in
the incident, correctly noting there is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983. Id. at 2. As
such, Tameka Lewis, Jamris Sparks, Pelicia Hall, Ron King, and Wendall Banks are dismissed.
Second, Judge Ball rejected Wells’s vague allegations about denial of medical treatment,
noting that Wells was given an x-ray following the alleged assault. Id. at 3. The undersigned
The R&R  was entered on September 24, 2021, and gave Wells 14 days to file an
Objection. Wells sought and was granted an extension of time to file, making his Objection due
November 10, 2021. That deadline has passed. And, as noted in the Order, Wells’s excessiveforce claims against several Defendants will proceed.
Case 3:20-cv-00040-DPJ-FKB Document 45 Filed 11/17/21 Page 2 of 2
agrees that Wells’s “allegations fall far short of stating a claim for deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need.” Id.
Third, Judge Ball explored Wells’s complaints about the RVR disciplinary process that
resulted in a 30-day loss of privileges. Wells claimed Officer Michael Ross falsely accused
Wells of shoving past him and Hearing Officer Latasha Brooks failed to follow proper
procedures at the hearing. Id. Explaining that “[a]n inmate’s challenge to prison disciplinary
proceeding is limited to situation where a denial of due process implicates a
constitutionallyprotected interest, such as liberty,” Judge Ball correctly concluded that Wells
had failed to state a claim against Ross and Brooks. Id.
Finally, Judge Ball recommended dismissing the claims against Sean Smith, chief of
MDOC’s Criminal Investigation Division. Wells complained that, after filing a grievance, he
never heard back on the investigation. But, as Judge Ball recognized, “an inmate has no
constitutionally protected liberty interest in having a grievance investigated or resolved to his
satisfaction.” Id. at 4 (citing Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir. 2005)).
The well-reasoned (and unopposed) R&R is adopted as the opinion of the Court.
Defendants Hall, King, Banks, Lewis, Brooks, Sparks, Ross, and Smith are dismissed; Wells’s
failure-to-provide-medical-care claim is also dismissed.
Wells’s excessive-force claims against James Fillyaw, Carl Arnold, Tyler Smith, and
Lacedrick Fletcher should go forward.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 17th day of November, 2021.
s/ Daniel P. Jordan III
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?