Chatman v. Roy et al, No. 2:2017cv01952 - Document 28 (N.D. Ala. 2019)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - The magistrate judge's report is ADOPTED and the recommendations are ACCEPTED. The court ORDERS the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to the 14th Amendment excessive force claims, the eighth amendment excessive force claims based on allegations Roysprayed Chatman's cell with a fire extinguisher and Jenkins used Sabre Red Cellbuster, and any constitutional claim based on Roy's refusal to allow Chatman to use the phon e. These claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED with respect to the eighth amendment excessive force claims based on Roy's alleged use of the fire extinguisher to spray Chatman in the face and Jenkins' alleged assault on Chatman in the hallway by slapping him and spaying a chemical agent in his face. These claims areREFERRED to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 9/23/2019. (AFS)

Download PDF
Chatman v. Roy et al Doc. 28 FILED 2019 Sep-23 PM 01:40 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION STANLEY BRENT CHATMAN, Plaintiff, v. COI KENNEDY D. ROY, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action Number 2:17-cv-01952-AKK-SGC MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The magistrate judge entered a report on August 28, 2019, recommending the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part. Doc. 27. The magistrate judge recommended the motion be granted with respect to Stanley Brent Chatman’s (1) Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claims against Officer Kennedy Roy and Lieutenant Mohammad Jenkins, (2) Eighth Amendment excessive force claims based on allegations Roy sprayed a fire extinguisher into Chatman’s cell and Jenkins used Sabre Red Cell buster, and (3) any constitutional claim based on Roy’s refusal to allow Chatman to use the phone. Id. at 17. The magistrate judge recommended the motion be denied with respect to Chatman’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims regarding Roy allegedly spraying Chatman in the face with a fire extinguisher and Jenkins allegedly slapping Chatman and spraying him with a chemical agent in the hallway. Id. at 17-18. Although the Dockets.Justia.com parties were advised of their right to file specific written objections within fourteen days, no objections have been received by the court. Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation, the magistrate judge’s report is ADOPTED and the recommendations are ACCEPTED. Accordingly, the court ORDERS that the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to (1) the Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claims against Roy and Jenkins, (2) the Eighth Amendment excessive force claims based on allegations Roy sprayed Chatman’s cell with a fire extinguisher and Jenkins used Sabre Red Cell buster, and (3) any constitutional claim based on Roy’s refusal to allow Chatman to use the phone. These claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED with respect to the Eighth Amendment excessive force claims based on Roy’s alleged use of a fire extinguisher to spray Chatman in the face and Jenkins’ alleged assault on Chatman in the hallway by slapping him and spraying a chemical agent in his face. These claims are REFERRED to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. DONE the 23rd day of September, 2019. _________________________________ ABDUL K. KALLON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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.