CASTILLO-VELASQUEZ v. EMMONS

• Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
• Decided: June 16, 2022
• Docket: 7:19-cv-00078
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION

SAUL CASTILLO-VELASQUEZ, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CASE NO.: 7:19-cv-78 (WLS) : Warden SHAWN EMMONS, et al., : : Defendant. : : ORDER Before the Court is a Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff on May 25, 2022. (Doc. 57.) Therein, Judge Langstaff recommends that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 48), on Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim, be granted for three reasons. (Doc. 57.) First, Plaintiff failed to establish that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm, when they placed inmate Leroy Reese in Plaintiff’s cell on or about December 6, 2018, as Reese’s disciplinary record was insufficient to put Defendants on notice that Reese posed a threat to other inmates.1 (Doc. 57 at 8.) Second, to the extent Defendants allegedly violated prison policy, on the cell assignments of inmates, “an official’s violation of prison policy alone does not support a constitutional claim under section 1983.” Gooden v. Mormon, 2011 WL 13134846 (M.D. Ga. 2011) (WLS). Third, as no constitutional violation was found, based on the facts provided, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Baltimore v. City of Albany, Ga., 183 F. A’ppx. 891, 896 (11th Cir. 2006). The Recommendation noticed Plaintiff that he may serve and file a written objection to these recommendations within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this recommendation. (Doc. 57 at 13.) On June 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Authority.” (Doc. 58.) Therein, Plaintiff noticed the Court that Plaintiff authorized this proceeding to continue. (Id.) The Court notes that Plaintiff did not object to any of the findings made in the Recommendation in Plaintiff’s “Notice of Authority.” Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to raise

1 Inmate Leroy Reese allegedly attacked and injured Plaintiff on or about December 12, 2018. a proper objection to the Recommendation as no discernable objection has been filed with this Court to date. Accordingly, the Court has reviewed the Recommendation for clear error and finds none. Therefore, upon full review and consideration of the record, and finding neither plain error nor manifest injustice in the Recommendation, see United States v. Aponte, 461 F. App’x 828, 830 n.2 (11th Cir. 2012), the Court finds that the Recommendation (Doc. 57) should be, and hereby is, ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and made the Order of this Court for reason of the findings made and reasons stated therein. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 48) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall take nothing upon the Complaint. (Doc. 1.)

SO ORDERED, this 16th day of June 2022.

/s/ W. Louis Sands W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT