Filed: Mar. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 18, 2014
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge. The pro se plaintiff, Robert Fletcher Herbert, is an inmate at the Perry Correctional Institution. He brings this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 contending that the defendants violated his constitutional rights during plaintiff's arrest. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a Report and Recommendation and opines that the defendants' motion for summary judgment 2 should be granted. The Report sets forth in detail the rele
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge. The pro se plaintiff, Robert Fletcher Herbert, is an inmate at the Perry Correctional Institution. He brings this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 contending that the defendants violated his constitutional rights during plaintiff's arrest. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a Report and Recommendation and opines that the defendants' motion for summary judgment 2 should be granted. The Report sets forth in detail the relev..
More
ORDER
JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge.
The pro se plaintiff, Robert Fletcher Herbert, is an inmate at the Perry Correctional Institution. He brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contending that the defendants violated his constitutional rights during plaintiff's arrest.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and Recommendation and opines that the defendants' motion for summary judgment2 should be granted. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation, and he has filed objections thereto. The court has conducted a de novo review of the plaintiff's objections and finds them to be duplicative of the claims in the complaint. As such, the plaintiff's objections are overruled.
The Magistrate Judge opines that the defendants are immune from suit in their official capacities pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Magistrate Judge also suggests that the plaintiff's claims against defendant Barber in his supervisory position over defendant Treaster cannot be supported under the doctrine of respondeat superior in a§ 1983 action. Finally, the Magistrate Judge finds that defendant Treaster did not personally participate in any alleged deprivation of the plaintiff's constitutional claims such that plaintiff could show a valid § 1983 claim.
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, the Report and Recommendation, and the plaintiff's objections thereto, this court finds that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The Report is therefore adopted and incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, the defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 41) is granted and this action is dismissed. Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel, to file a cross motion for summary judgment, and to amend his complaint are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
