Whatley v. Hart

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA WAYCROSS DIVISION

SHAWN WAYNE WHATLEY,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:12-cv-142

v.

DARRELL HART, et al.,

Defendants.

O RDE R After an independent and de novo review of the record, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, (doc. 139), to which Defendants filed two sets of identical Objections, (docs. 140, 141). Defendants’ Objections, while responsive to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, assert no new material facts or arguments. Defendants state this Court must discount all of Plaintiff’s injuries except for his bruises. (Doc. 140, pp. 5–6). Defendants base their objection on Bennett v. Parker, 898 F.2d 1530, 1533– 34 (11th Cir. 1990), and reassert the same arguments made in their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (Doc. 140, pp. 5–6; Doc. 115-1, pp. 18–19). The Magistrate Judge fully considered and rejected Defendants’ arguments on this issue. (Doc. 139, pp. 10–11). The Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the evidence before the Court, construed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, could be found by a reasonable jury to show a greater than de minimis injury, and, therefore, Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment barring Plaintiff from compensatory and punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). (Doc. 139, p. 13). Therefore, the Court OVERRULES Defendants’ Objections. The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court. The Court GRANTS in part as unopposed Defendants’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgment and DISMISSES Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Hart and Griffin. The Court also DENIES in part Defendants’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgment regarding Plaintiff’ s excessive force claim for compensatory and punitive damages against Defendant Smith. SO ORDERED, this 16th day of April, 2020. f S pe L yA

R. STAN BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA