Waddleton v. Jackson et al

Filing 79

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 69 MOTION for Summary Judgment, GRANTED 58 MOTION for Relief from Judgment DENIED.(Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(lsmith, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
MARVIN WADDLETON, III,
Plaintiff,
VS.
NORRIS JACKSON, et al,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. C-10-267
§
§
§
§

ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDA AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Pending before the Court is “Defendants’ Brisher and Trevino’s Motion for
Summary Judgment” (D.E. 69). On March 23, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge
Brian L. Owsley issued a Memorandum and Recommendation (D.E. 72), recommending
that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be granted.

Plaintiff filed his

Objections (D.E. 77) untimely on April 16, 2012. Also pending before the Court is
Plaintiff’s “Motion for Relief from a Judgment-Order” (D.E. 58). On March 29, 2012,
United States Magistrate Judge Brian L. Owsley issued a Memorandum and
Recommendation (D.E. 74), recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion be denied. Plaintiff
filed his Objections (D.E. 78) untimely on April 18, 2012. For the reasons set forth
below, the Court adopts the Memoranda and Recommendations.
Defendants Brisher and Trevino, who are both TDCJ employees, seek summary
judgment in both their official and individual capacities on the basis of Eleventh
Amendment immunity and qualified immunity as state agents who presided over
Plaintiff’s grievances.
1/3

Plaintiff’s untimely objections fail to demonstrate how these

Defendants were personally involved in policy-making regarding strip searches, in
issuing orders for strip searches, or in executing those orders.

None of Plaintiff’s

objections address the legal and factual standards that he is required to meet in order to
overcome the immunities pled.

Plaintiff’s objections stated in D.E. 77 are

OVERRULED.
In his Motion for Relief from a Judgment-Order (D.E. 58), Plaintiff seeks damages
and injunctive relief based upon the Fifth Circuit’s decision in this case that his Fourth
Amendment claim states a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Magistrate
Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (D.E. 74) rejects those claims.

In his

untimely objections (D.E. 78), Plaintiff reiterates his claim that he is now entitled to
judgment based upon the Fifth Circuit’s decision.
Plaintiff fundamentally misunderstands the Fifth Circuit’s ruling. When the Fifth
Circuit “accepted the Plaintiff’s allegations as true,” that was merely an exercise in the
standard of review—hypothetically deciding whether, if proven to be true (without
consideration of potential defenses), the facts would be sufficient to warrant relief such
that all parties must be put to their proof. It is not a determination that the allegations are
actually true.

The Fifth Circuit decision does not preclude the Defendants from

presenting any defense they may have that the factual allegations are not actually true or
are not determinative because of some other defense, right, or privilege. Thus there is no
fact finding that is entitled to res judicata, collateral estoppel, law of the case, or other
procedural bar to trial of the factual matters. The only thing that the Fifth Circuit decided
was that Plaintiff was entitled to proceed with trial on the Fourth Amendment claim (and
2/3

only the Fourth Amendment claim).

Plaintiff’s objections stated in D.E. 78 are

OVERRULED.
Having reviewed the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations
set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Memoranda and Recommendations, as well as
Plaintiff’s Objections, and all other relevant documents in the record, and having made a
de novo disposition of the portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Memoranda and
Recommendations to which objections were specifically directed, the Court
OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections and ADOPTS as its own the findings and
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (D.E. 69) is GRANTED and the claims made against Defendants V.L. Brisher
and Barbara Trevino are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s “Motion for
Relief from a Judgment-Order” (D.E. 58) is in all things DENIED.
ORDERED this 23rd day of April, 2012.

___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3/3