Bryant v. Forrest et al
ORDER: The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation 125 , the objections and conducted a de novo review of the record. For the following reasons, the objections are OVERRULED, and the Report and Recommendation 125 is ADOPTED. Defendants 39; Motion for Summary Judgment 107 is DENIED. This case will proceed to trial on May 16, 2017, and all deadlines in the Court's prior Order remain in effect 87 . This case is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge to appoint counsel for Plaintif f and to discuss alternative dispute resolution opportunities with the parties. Signed by District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 2/9/17. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WAFORD K. BRYANT,
GREGORY FORREST, et al.,
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge,
recommending that Gregory Forrest’s and Adam Hernandez’s (collectively “Defendants’”)
Motion for Summary Judgment be denied. (Doc. No. 125.) Defendants filed timely objections.
(Doc. No. 130.) The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the objections and
conducted a de novo review of the record. For the following reasons, the objections are
OVERRULED, and the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.
Defendants first object that the Magistrate Judge considered Waford Bryant’s testimony
regardless of Bryant’s failure to follow the Local Rules and respond to Defendants’ Statement of
Undisputed Facts. (Doc. No. 130 at 1.) “By order entered in any case, the Court may deviate from
any provision of any Local Rule of this Court, when appropriate for the needs of the case and the
administration of justice.” LR 1.02. Judge Brown found that suspending the requirement that
Bryant respond to Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed Facts was appropriate for the needs of
this case and the administration of justice, and the Court agrees. Therefore, the Court overrules
Defendants’ objections regarding the excessive force claim also lack merit. First, Judge
Haynes’ Order did not dismiss any claims, so it did not dismiss any excessive force claim. (Doc.
Nos. 4-5.) Further, the Magistrate Judge found that Defendants did a take-down of Bryant while
Bryant was not resisting, which could be an excessive force claim. See Lawler v. City of Taylor,
268 Fed. Appx. 384, 387 (6th Cir. 2008) (finding the defendant’s take-down excessive when the
plaintiff did not pose a threat to the defendant’s safety). The take-down resulted in more than a de
minimis injury because it was “maliciously and sadistically to cause harm,” rather than in a “good
faith effort to maintain or restore discipline. Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 36 (2010)
(quoting Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992)). Therefore, this objection is overruled.
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 107) is DENIED.
This case will proceed to trial on May 16, 2017, and all deadlines in the Court’s prior Order remain
in effect. (Doc. No. 87.)
This case is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge to appoint counsel for Plaintiff and to
discuss alternative dispute resolution opportunities with the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
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?