Smith v. Myers et al (INMATE 2), No. 2:2020cv00122 - Document 75 (M.D. Ala. 2022)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 12/28/2022. (am, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Smith v. Myers et al (INMATE 2) Doc. 75 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION MARKUS SMITH, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. WALTER MYERS, Warden, et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20cv122-MHT (WO) OPINION Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed this lawsuit asserting that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by the placement of another prisoner in the cell with him while plaintiff was on suicide watch. court on the This lawsuit is now before the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted as to his federal claims, and that the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claims . are no objections to the recommendation. There After an Dockets.Justia.com independent and de novo review of the record, the court concludes should that be the adopted, magistrate albeit judge’s for recommendation somewhat reasons as to the summary-judgment motion. different The court finds that plaintiff has failed to submit any evidence showing that subjectively most of the defendants aware of or involved were in the prisoner’s placement in plaintiff’s cell. at all second As to the two defendants who evidence in the record suggests may have been involved in the placement, plaintiff has failed to submit or point to any evidence showing that they were subjectively aware of a substantial risk of serious psychological or physical harm posed to him by the placement of the second prisoner in the same cell for a period of about six hours. adopt the part of the The court does not recommendation finding that record affirmatively shows that the second prisoner and plaintiff were never actually housed together, which is based on the fact that their bed codes were different. See Report and Recommendation (Doc. 74) at 9. It is not clear to the court that the different bed codes indicate placement in different cells, as opposed to different beds that could be in the same cell. An appropriate judgment will be entered. DONE, this the 28th day of December, 2022. /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.
