Boyd v. Halley
ORDER: Accordingly, the R & R is hereby ADOPTED, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 36) is GRANTED, and this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court shall enter final judgment in accordance with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 9/19/2017. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
DEPUTY F/N/U HALLEY, et. al.
Chief Judge Crenshaw
Magistrate Judge Newbern has entered a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Doc. No.
43) recommending that Defendants’ unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 36) be
granted, and that this case be dismissed. In response, Plaintiff filed a letter, (Doc. No. 45), which,
if construed as an objection, is untimely because the R & R was entered on August 11, 2017, but the
letter was not filed until September 14, 2017. Plaintiff was warned that “[f]ailure to file specific
objections within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this Report and Recommendation can constitute
a waiver of further appeal of the matters disposed of therein.” (Doc. No. 43 at 11).
Failure to file timely objections aside, Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment or their Statement of Undisputed Facts. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provide that when a party “fails to properly address another party’s assertion of fact as required by
Rule 56(c), the Court may “grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials –
including the facts considered undisputed–show that the movant is entitled to it[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(e)(3). This Court’s Local Rules similarly provided that the “[f]ailure to respond to a moving
party’s statement of material facts . . . within the time period provided by these Rules shall indicated
that the asserted facts are not disputed for purposes of summary judgment.” L.R. 56.01(g).
Having undertaken the de novo review required by F. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and based upon the
undisputed facts presented at the time of ruling, Magistrate Judge Newbern properly concluded that
Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim. Those facts
established that, when Plaintiff did not respond to correctional officer’s directives while in the food
line, he was placed in handcuffs and taken to the booking area. As Magistrate Judge Newbern
correctly observed, even though the handcuffs may have tightened during the short walk from the
mess area to booking, “grabbing [Plaintiff’s] wrists, handcuffing him, and escorting him to booking
was not objectively unreasonable where [Plaintiff] refused to follow [a guard’s] direct order and
attempted to resist [the] use of handcuffs.” (Doc. No. 43 at 7).
Accordingly, the R & R is hereby ADOPTED, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. No. 36) is GRANTED, and this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The
Clerk of the Court shall enter final judgment in accordance with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
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?