Opinion
CIVIL ACTION 10-00114-CG-M
12-06-2011
CHARLES W. CUNNINGHAM, JR. (AIS #193686) Plaintiff, v. GRANTT CULLIVER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court, as follows:
1) The motions for summary judgment of Defendants Culliver, Bishop, Watson, Sizemore, Broadhead, Burroughs, Portis, and Nurse Sara Carroll are GRANTED as to all claims asserted against them by Plaintiff in the Complaint;
2) The motions for summary judgment of Defendants Jenkins, Ashworth, McCrory, Stanton, Brazile, Branch, Brandon Carroll, and Corbitt are DENIED as to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim based on the use of the stun shield during the cell extraction;
3) The motions for summary judgment of Defendants Jenkins, Ashworth, McCrory, Stanton, Brazile, Branch, Brandon Carroll, and Corbitt are DENIED as to Plaintiff's state law assault and battery claims arising out of Defendants' use of physical force and the use of the stun shield during the cell extraction; and
4) With the exception of the claims specified in paragraphs 2 and 3 above, the motions for summary judgment of Defendants Jenkins, Ashworth, McCrory, Stanton, Brazile, Branch, Brandon Carroll, and Corbitt are GRANTED as to all remaining claims asserted against them by Plaintiff in the Complaint.
Callie V. S. Granade
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE