Forester v. Hodges et al, No. 4:2012cv04094 - Document 34 (N.D. Ala. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment. The Court is of the Opinion that the Magistrate Judge's 33 Report is hereby ADOPTED and his 33 Recommendation is ACCEPTED. Accordingly, D efendants' various Motions for Summary Judgment are hereby GRANTED as set out, and the identified claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. In all other respects, the Motions are DENIED. By separate Order, this case will be set for a Final Pretrial Conference. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 8/7/2014. (JLC, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED 2014 Aug-07 PM 01:49 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA MIDDLE DIVISION JAMES ALLEN FORESTER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:12-cv-04094-VEH-JEO ) SERGEANT BRUCE T. HODGES, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation on July 7, 2014, recommending that: (1) Defendants motion for summary judgment on plaintiff s claims against them in their official capacities for monetary damages be GRANTED and the claims be DISMISSED with prejudice; (2) Defendants Guthery and Dixon s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims be GRANTED and the claims be DISMISSED with prejudice; (3) Defendants Hodge s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Hodge be DENIED; (4) Defendant Hodge s motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim on the basis of qualified immunity be DENIED; (5) Defendants Guthery and Dixon s motion for summary judgment on 1 plaintiff s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claims be DENIED; (6) Defendants Guthery and Dixon s motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claims on the basis of qualified immunity be DENIED; and (7) Defendants motion for summary judgment on plaintiff s Fourteenth Amendment due process claims be GRANTED and the claims be DISMISSED with prejudice. (Doc. 33 at 19-20) (emphasis added). Objections to the recommendation were due on July 21, 2014. None have been filed. Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation, the Court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge s report is due to be and is hereby ADOPTED and his recommendation is ACCEPTED. The Court EXPRESSLY FINDS that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that judgment as a matter of law is appropriate as to all claims, issues, and parties as to which the magistrate recommended granting summary judgment. Accordingly, defendants various motions for summary judgment are due to be, and hereby are, GRANTED as set out above, and the above-identified claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. In all other respects, the motions are DENIED. By separate order, this case will be set for a final pretrial conference. 2 DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of August, 2014. VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS United States District Judge 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.
