Mills v. Adams County Board of Supervisors

Filing 78

ORDER granting 60 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 70 Motion to Withdraw ; adopting Report and Recommendations re 77 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge David C. Bramlette, III on 3/4/2020 (Copy mailed to plaintiff.) (cwl)

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

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-cv-15-DCB-MTP

TRAVIS PATTEN, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This cause is before the Court on Defendants Travis Patten,
Lee Best, Delayne Bush, Walter Mingee, and Dustin Smith’s Motion
for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 60], Defendants Lee Best and
Delayne Bush’s Motion to Withdraw Affidavits [ECF No. 70], and
Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker’s Report and Recommendation
[ECF No. 77], to which no objections were filed by the
Plaintiff. Magistrate Judge Parker recommends that the Motion to
Withdraw Affidavits [ECF No. 70] be denied, the Motion for
Summary Judgment [ECF No. 60] be granted, and this action be
dismissed with prejudice. Having carefully reviewed same, the
Court finds the Report and Recommendation to be well taken.
The Plaintiff claims that Defendants Walter Mingee
(“Mingee”) and Dustin Smith (“Smith”) used excessive force when
arresting him on June 6, 2017 because they, without warning,
released a police dog which bit him on the back of his leg.
Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity
and that the Plaintiff suffered no more than de minimis injuries

1

– scratches and a bite wound that required no medical treatment.
Magistrate Judge Parker found, “In this case, the undersigned
cannot conclude that, under the circumstances alleged, it was
clearly established that Defendants’ use of K9 force, without
warning, was unconstitutional. Accordingly, Defendants Mingee
and Smith are entitled to qualified immunity for Plaintiff’s
excessive-force claim.” [ECF No. 77] at p. 14.
Officer Mingee submitted an affidavit stating that “the use
of a K9 unit was appropriate because of the nature of Anthony
Mills’ charges and his history of firearm possession, as well as
the circumstances of his arrest, as he was in a wooded area and
likely to flee.” [ECF No. 60-6]. Although the information
provided to the court about the use of a police dog is lacking
in specificity, the Court cannot find and does not find that the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation regarding the qualified
immunity analysis is in error. Therefore, the Court adopts the
Report and Recommendation as the findings and conclusions of
this Court.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Michael T.
Parker’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 77] is ADOPTED as
the findings and conclusions of this Court and the Defendants’

2

Motion to Withdraw Affidavits is DENIED and the Motion for
Summary Judgment is GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the action is dismissed with
prejudice.
A final judgment dismissing the action will follow in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED this the 4th day of March, 2020.
_/s/ David Bramlette__________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3