JACKSON v. DEPUTY WARDEN REGINALD CLARK

Opinion

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

JOHNNIE DEMOND JACKSON, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 5:23-cv-00333-TES-AGH Deputy Warden REGINALD CLARK, Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation [Doc. 121] to deny Plaintiff Johnnie Jackson’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 103]. Plaintiff filed Objections [Doc. 122], which requires the Court to review the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Even under that rudimentary review, though, the Court still finds the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation correctly reasoned. As the Magistrate Judge laid out, “there is a genuine factual dispute regarding whether Defendant used excessive force against Plaintiff,” which cannot be resolved on a summary-judgment motion. Instead, the issue must be resolved at trial. [Doc. 121, p. 4]. Having considered the Recommendation, the Court finds no enumeration of error and agrees with the findings and conclusions of the United States Magistrate Judge. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the United States Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation [Doc. 121] and MAKES IT THE ORDER OF THE COURT. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 103] and sets this case for trial beginning on July 14, 2025, with a pretrial conference set for June 30, 2025.1

As outlined by the Court’s pretrial conference Order [Doc. 124], the parties should coordinate and complete the required form on or before June 23, 2025. If Plaintiff fails to meaningfully participate in the production of the required pretrial conference form, his case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (first citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); and then citing Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)) (“The [C]ourt

may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”). SO ORDERED, this 21st day of May, 2025. S/ Tilman E. Self, III TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Speedy Trial [Doc. 123] because the case is set for the Court’s next trial term, and his Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Doc. 118] as moot since Plaintiff previously paid the filing fee on September 11, 2023.