Mills v. Adams County Sheriff Dept. et al

Filing 129

ORDER granting 119 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendations re 123 Report and Recommendations.; finding as moot 127 Motion to Strike. Signed by District Judge David C. Bramlette, III on 7/8/2020 (LAT)

Case 5:17-cv-00110-DCB-MTP Document 129 Filed 07/08/20 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY DUANE MILLS
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-110-DCB-MTP

TRAVIS PATTEN, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Michael
T. Parker’s Report and Recommendation. [ECF No. 123]. Therein,
Magistrate Judge Parker recommends that Defendant Tony Nichols
(“Nichols”) and Defendant Anthony Nettles (“Nettles”) Motion for
Summary Judgment [ECF No. 119] be granted and that the Complaint
[ECF No. 1] be dismissed with prejudice. Having carefully
reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds it to be
well taken and orders as follows:
Plaintiff Anthony Duane Mills (“Mills”), proceeding pro se
and in forma pauperis, was incarcerated at the Adams County Jail
but has since been released and lives in Natchez, Mississippi.
This matter arises out of the events and circumstances
surrounding and following an alleged 911 call that Plaintiff
made in the early morning hours of March 3, 2016. Plaintiff
contends that he dialed 911 to report that Adams County Deputy
Walter Mackel (“Deputy Mackel”) raped and sodomized him in his
home. Plaintiff further contends that Deputy Nettles failed to

1

Case 5:17-cv-00110-DCB-MTP Document 129 Filed 07/08/20 Page 2 of 4

send an officer to investigate his call, and that Captain
Nichols retaliated against him for claiming he had been raped by
Deputy Mackel.
Defendants Nettles and Nichols moved for Summary Judgment
[119] on November 15, 2019. Mills did not file a response to the
Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment until April 8, 2020 –
approximately five months later and well outside the deadline to
do so. On April 29, 2020, Defendants moved to strike Mills’
Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment as untimely. [ECF
No. 127].
In his Report and Recommendation, filed on March 25, 2020,
Magistrate Judge Parker found that the Motion for Summary
Judgment should be granted.

Plaintiff filed his response

thirteen days after Magistrate Parker submitted his Report and
Recommendation. In an abundance of caution, the Court will
interpret Mills’ response as an objection to the Report and
Recommendation.
When a party objects to a Report and Recommendation, this
Court is required to “make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); see also Longmire v. Guste, 921 F.2d 620, 623 (5th
Cir. 1991). Those portions of the report not objected to are
2

Case 5:17-cv-00110-DCB-MTP Document 129 Filed 07/08/20 Page 3 of 4

reviewed only for plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir.1996)(en banc), superseded
by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “Parties
filing objections must specifically identify those findings
objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need
not be considered by the district court.” Allen v. Outlaw, No.
5:14-cv-60-DCB-MTP, 2015 WL 4759268, at * 2 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 12,
2015). Moreover, “[n]o factual objection is raised when a
petitioner merely reurges arguments contained in the original
petition.” Hinton v. Pike County, No. 18-60817, 2018 WL 3142942,
at *1 (S.D. Miss. June 27, 2018). The Court finds that Mills’
objections are frivolous and conclusory and are therefore
insufficient.
Having conducted a de novo review of the portions of the
Report and Recommendation objected to, and having reviewed the
remainder for plain error and finding none, the Court is
satisfied that Magistrate Judge Parker has undertaken an
extensive examination of the issues in this case and has issued
a thorough opinion which the Court adopts.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Parker’s Report
and Recommendation [ECF No. 123] is hereby ADOPTED as the
findings and conclusions of this Court;
3

Case 5:17-cv-00110-DCB-MTP Document 129 Filed 07/08/20 Page 4 of 4

FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections to the Report
and Recommendation are OVERRULED;
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Strike [ECF No.
127] is DENIED as MOOT;
FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment [ECF No. 119] is GRANTED, and the action is dismissed
with prejudice.
A final judgment dismissing the case with prejudice will
follow in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED this the 8th day of July, 2020.
___/s/ David Bramlette________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4