Kister v. Robbins (INMATE 1)

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

JOHN ANDREW KISTER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL CASE NO. 2:20-cv-1070-ECM ) LT. ROBBINS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER On December 22, 2023, the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation (doc. 70) to which no timely objections have been filed. The Court has carefully reviewed the record in this case, including the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation and the Defendants’ Answer and Special Report (doc. 25), which the Court construes as a motion for summary judgment. Concerning the Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Lieutenant Robbins (“Robbins”), the Court concludes that on this record, particularly given the Plaintiff’s admitted refusal to obey Robbins’ command and the Plaintiff’s lack of serious or lasting injury, the Plaintiff has failed to establish the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Robbins used force “maliciously and sadistically to cause harm,” as opposed to force which may have been merely “unreasonable or unnecessary.” See Williams v. Radford, 64 F.4th 1185, 1196 (11th Cir. 2023) (citations omitted). Accordingly, upon an independent review of the file and upon consideration of the Recommendation, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 70) is ADOPTED;

2. The Defendants’ Answer and Special Report (doc. 25) is construed as a motion for summary judgment, and the motion for summary judgment (doc. 25) is GRANTED; 3. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A separate Final Judgment will be entered.

DONE this 13th day of March, 2024.

/s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE