Adams v. Mental Health Specialist et al, No. 2:2020cv00808 - Document 56 (N.D. Ala. 2022)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge's report, the court ADOPTS the report and ACCEPTS the recommendation. Consistent with that recommendation, the court DISMISSES Adam� 39;s claims against the ADOC and DENIES his request for injunctive relief, to the extent he seeks the defendants' termination. Additionally, the court DENIES defendant Spencer's motion for summary judgment on Adam's deliberate indiffe rence claim and defendant Stephen's motion for summary judgment on Adam's failure-to-protect claim based on his placement in a crisis cell on April 7, 2020. The court GRANTS the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims, as no genuine issues of material fact exist. The court REFERS this matter to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 11/8/2022. (MEB2)

Download PDF
Adams v. Mental Health Specialist et al Doc. 56 FILED 2022 Nov-08 AM 10:16 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION BRANDON ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER J. STEPHENS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:20-cv-00808-LSC-JHE MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Brandon Adams filed a pro se amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States. (Doc. 16). On September 15, 2022, the magistrate judge entered a report recommending the court dismiss Adams’s claims against the Alabama Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) and deny his request for injunctive relief, to the extent he seeks termination of the defendants’ employment. (Doc. 54 at 14, 28, 29). Next, the magistrate judge recommended the court deny in part and grant in part the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. (Doc. 54 at 14–29). Specifically, the magistrate judge recommended the court deny defendant Spencer’s motion for summary judgment on Adams’s claim for deliberate indifference to serious mental health needs (doc. 54 at 15–21, 29), and defendant Stephens’s motion for summary judgment on Adams’s claim for failure to protect based on his placement in a crisis Dockets.Justia.com cell on April 17, 2020 (doc. 54 at 24–26, 29). The magistrate judge further recommended the court grant the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on all remaining claims and dismiss the claims with prejudice. (Doc. 54 at 14–15, 21–22, 26–28, 29). Although the magistrate judge advised the parties of their right to file specific written objections within 14 days, the court has not received any objections. After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s report, the court ADOPTS the report and ACCEPTS the recommendation. Consistent with that recommendation, the court DISMISSES Adams’s claims against the ADOC and DENIES his request for injunctive relief, to the extent he seeks the defendants’ termination. Additionally, the court DENIES defendant Spencer’s motion for summary judgment on Adams’s deliberate indifference claim and defendant Stephens’s motion for summary judgment on Adams’s failure-toprotect claim based on his placement in a crisis cell on April 17, 2020. The court GRANTS the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the remaining claims, as no genuine issues of material fact exist. The court REFERS this matter to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 2 DONE and ORDERED on November 8, 2022. _____________________________ L. Scott Coogler United States District Judge 160704 3

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.