Jones v. Jenkins et al, No. 2:2019cv01486 - Document 28 (N.D. Ala. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court hereby ADOPTS the magistrate judge's report and ACCEPTS his recommendation. Accordingly, the court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Jones' claims against the ADOC based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court GRANTS Jenkins' motion for summary judgment on Jones' Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Jenkins in his official capacity for money damages, the court finding no genuine issues of material f act exist, and DISMISSES the claim WITH PREJUDICE. The court DENIES Jenkins' motion for summary judgment on Jones' Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Jenkins in his individual capacity and REFERS this claim to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Anna M Manasco on 2/8/2022. (DNW)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jones v. Jenkins et al Doc. 28 FILED 2022 Feb-08 PM 04:25 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION CEDRIC JONES, JR., Plaintiff, v. MOHAMMAD JENKINS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:19-cv-01486-AMM-JHE MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Cedric Jones, Jr. filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Doc. 1. The magistrate judge entered a report on January 5, 2022, recommending that the court: (1) dismiss with prejudice Jones’ claims against the Alabama Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) based on Eleventh Amendment immunity; (2) grant Defendant Mohammad Jenkins’ motion for summary judgment on Jones’ Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Jenkins in his official capacity for monetary damages and dismiss the claim with prejudice; and (3) deny Jenkins’ motion for summary judgment on Jones’ Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Jenkins in his individual capacity. Doc. 27. Although the parties were advised of their right to file specific written objections within fourteen days, the court has not received any objections. Dockets.Justia.com Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation, the court hereby ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report and ACCEPTS his recommendation. Accordingly, the court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Jones’ claims against the ADOC based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court GRANTS Jenkins’ motion for summary judgment on Jones’ Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Jenkins in his official capacity for money damages, the court finding no genuine issues of material fact exist, and DISMISSES the claim WITH PREJUDICE. The court DENIES Jenkins’ motion for summary judgment on Jones’ Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Jenkins in his individual capacity and REFERS this claim to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of February, 2022. _________________________________ ANNA M. MANASCO 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.
