Davis v. Valdez
Filing
62
Order Accepting 60 Findings and Recommendations on Motion re: 45 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Cody Hill, F Hernandez. The court grants Defendants Hernandez and Hill's Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issues of Exhaustion and Qualified Immunity 45 and dismisses with prejudice this action and the claims against Defendants Fernando Hernandez and Cody Hill. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 11/25/2013) (cea)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
GRADY ALLEN DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHERIFF LUPE VALDEZ;
FERNANDO HERNANDEZ;
AND CODY HILL,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:12-CV-2013-L
ORDER
Before the court is Defendants Hernandez and Hill’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the
Issues of Exhaustion and Qualified Immunity (Doc. 45), filed April 30, 2013. Plaintiff, who is
proceeding pro se, brought this action alleging various claims against Sheriff Lupe Valdez and two
unnamed Dallas County detention officers, who were later identified as Fernando Hernandez
(“Hernandez”) and Cody Hill (“Hill”). Plaintiff alleges that, while incarcerated, he was assaulted
by Hernandez, Hill, and other officers after engaging in a verbal confrontation with Hernandez and
suffered injuries as a result of the physical assault. The claims against Sheriff Lupe Valdez were
previously dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, only Plaintiff’s claims against Hernandez and
Hill remain.
In their motion for summary judgment, Hernandez and Hill (“Defendants”) contend that they
are entitled to judgment on Plaintiff’s claims against them for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act in that Plaintiff failed to file a Step Two
appeal from the denial of grievance. Defendants contend, in the alternative, that the evidence does
Order –Page 1
not establish that they violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights by subjecting him to excessive force
or that their actions were objectively unreasonable under clearly established law, and they are entitled
to qualified immunity. On September 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed a response to the summary judgment
motion to which Defendants replied on October 9, 2013.
On November 11, 2013, Magistrate Judge David L. Horan entered Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), recommending that Defendants’
summary judgment motion be granted on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative
remedies. The magistrate judge therefore determined that he need not reach Defendants’ alternative
ground of qualified immunity. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report, contending again that he was
told by “two employees” at the jail and a fire marshal that there is no Step Two in the grievance
procedure. Pl.’s Obj. 4. He also disputes receiving the inmate handbook containing information
regarding the grievance process and contends that he was not aware that information in this regard
was available to inmates on television because he does not watch television.
Plaintiff’s arguments are not supported by any competent summary judgment evidence, and
Plaintiff’s pro se status does not relieve him from adhering to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
applicable to summary judgment. The court therefore overrules the objections. After reviewing the
pleadings, file, and record in this case, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the
magistrate judge are correct and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court grants
Defendants Hernandez and Hill’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issues of Exhaustion and
Qualified Immunity (Doc. 45) and dismisses with prejudice this action and the claims against
Defendants Fernando Hernandez and Cody Hill. Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the court will enter a judgment by separate document.
Order –Page 2
It is so ordered this 25th day of November, 2013.
_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
Order –Page 3
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?