Jones v. Knight, 2:16-cv-784-ALB. (2019)
Court: District Court, M.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20190905648
Visitors: 3
Filed: Sep. 04, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 04, 2019
Summary: ORDER ANDREW L. BRASHER , District Judge . Proceeding pro se under 42 U.S.C. 1983, Plaintiff alleges that, while incarcerated at the Easterling Correctional Facility in Clio, Alabama, Defendants used or failed to protect Plaintiff from excessive force against him in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. (Doc. 1). Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 21). On June 20, 2019, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. 52) to which Plaintiff filed his response on
Summary: ORDER ANDREW L. BRASHER , District Judge . Proceeding pro se under 42 U.S.C. 1983, Plaintiff alleges that, while incarcerated at the Easterling Correctional Facility in Clio, Alabama, Defendants used or failed to protect Plaintiff from excessive force against him in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. (Doc. 1). Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 21). On June 20, 2019, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. 52) to which Plaintiff filed his response on ..
More
ORDER
ANDREW L. BRASHER, District Judge.
Proceeding pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff alleges that, while incarcerated at the Easterling Correctional Facility in Clio, Alabama, Defendants used or failed to protect Plaintiff from excessive force against him in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. (Doc. 1). Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 21). On June 20, 2019, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. 52) to which Plaintiff filed his response on July 23, 2019. (Doc. 55). Upon an independent review of the record and consideration of the Recommendation, it is ORDERED as follows:
(1) The Recommendation (Doc. 52) is ADOPTED;
(2) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 21) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claims for monetary damages against Defendants in their official capacities, and those claims are DISMISSED with prejudice based on absolute immunity.
(3) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 21) is DENIED as to Plaintiff's claim of excessive force against Defendants in their individual capacities.
(4) An order setting this action for trial will be entered separately.
Source: Leagle
