Opinion
CASE NO. CV408-150.
July 24, 2009
ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommend tion of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 33), to which Objections have been filed (Doc. 34). After careful consideration and a de novo review, the Court concurs with the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
In his Objections, Plaintiff asks the Court for a handwriting analysis on the Receipt of Grievance Form to prove that Defendants knew of the Grievance. (Doc. 35.) However, even if Defendants knew of the Grievance, summary judgment would still be appropriate because Plaintiff has shown nothing to controvert the undisputed evidence either that Defendants would have recommended the transfer regardless of the protected conduct or that Defendants are not the ultimate decisionmakers responsible for Plaintiff's transfer. See Smith v. Mosley, 532 F.3d 1270, 1279 (11th Cir. 2008) ("[T]he question for the court under Mt. Healthy became whether a reasonable fact finder . . . would have to find that the defendants would have disciplined Smith even in the absence of the protected conduct. . . ." (internal quotation marks omitted)), Smith v. Campbell, 250 F.3d 1032, 1038 (6th Cir. 2001) (statements of a nondecisionmaker "cannot be evidence of a retaliatory motive"), Smith v. Fla. Dept. of Corr., 318 Fed. App'x 726, at *2 (11th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (requiring evidence that Defendant was responsible for the decision to transfer).
SO ORDERED