-SRW Dobbins v. Giles et al (INMATE1), No. 2:2008cv00895 - Document 42 (M.D. Ala. 2011)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 5/26/2011. (cc, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION WILLIAM GEOFFERY DOBBINS, Plaintiff, v. J.C. GILES and LEWIS HULETT, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08cv895-MHT (WO) OPINION Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff William Geoffery Dobbins, a lawsuit challenging former the state inmate, constitutionality filed of this actions taken against him by defendants J.C. Giles and Lewis Hulett. This lawsuit is now before the court on the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge that Giles and Hulett s motion for summary judgment should be granted in all respects, except as to Dobbins s excessive-force claim against Hulett in his individual capacity, which, according should go to trial. to the magistrate judge, Also before the court are Hulett s objections to the recommendation. After an independent and de novo review of the record, the court concludes that Hulett s objections should be overruled and the magistrate judge s recommendation adopted. The court adds this comment. Hulett argues, for the first time, that Dobbins cannot recover for emotional distress because such damages are provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). barred by the Hulett concedes, however, that he raised this argument for the first time in his objections. Thus, the argument was not included in Hulett s summary-judgment motion, nor was it presented to the magistrate judge or addressed by the magistrate judge in her recommendation. before the court is Because the only matter the magistrate judge s recommendation, Hulett s argument is not really before the court at this time. In addition, because Hulett did not present his argument earlier, Dobbins has not had an opportunity to address the argument. The court, therefore, declines to address the argument at this time. 2 If Hulett still wishes to pursue the argument, he should file a separate motion that presents it or he can raise the issue at trial. An appropriate order will be entered. DONE, this the 26th day of May, 2011. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
