Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00316/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00316-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CAREY DALE GRAYSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFERSON S. DUNN, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 2:12-CV-0316-WKW

 

 

and,

CHARLES LEE BURTON, )

ROBERT BRYANT MELSON, )

RONALD BERT SMITH, )

GEOFFREY TODD WEST, )

TORREY TWANE MCNABB, ) CASE NOS. 2:16-CV-0267-WKW

 ) 2:16-CV-0268-WKW

Plaintiffs, ) 2:16-CV-0269-WKW

 ) 2:16-CV-0270-WKW

v. ) 2:16-CV-0284-WKW

 )

JEFFERSON S. DUNN, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

Case 2:12-cv-00316-WKW-CSC Document 205 Filed 11/18/16 Page 1 of 17
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Ronald Bert Smith is an Alabama death-row inmate, in the custody

of the Alabama Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) awaiting his execution

scheduled for December 8, 2016.

1

 On April 15, 2016, he filed a complaint under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the constitutionality of Alabama’s method-of-execution 

under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States 

Constitution. His complaint contains identical claims and involves questions of fact 

and law common to the Midazolam Litigation. On April 28, 2016, the court 

consolidated five cases, including Smith’s, with the Midazolam Litigation for 

discovery and trial in order to promote judicial economy, eliminate duplication of 

discovery, and avoid unnecessary costs. (See Doc. # 153.)

This matter is before the court on Defendants’ Consolidated Motion to 

Dismiss Intervenor Plaintiffs’ Complaints.2 (Doc. # 160.) The motion has been fully 

briefed and is ripe for review. Defendants’ motion is due to be granted as to Smith. 

 

1 On September 14, 2016, the Alabama Supreme Court set Smith’s execution date. (Docs. 

# 186, 186-1.) Smith has not filed a motion to stay his execution. 

2 Defendants’ motion concerns Smith and four other plaintiffs (Charles Lee Burton, Robert 

Bryant Melson, Geoffrey Todd West, and Torrey Twane McNabb), all of whom were consolidated 

into the Midazolam Litigation on April 28, 2016. (Doc. # 153.) This Memorandum Opinion and 

Order addresses Defendants’ motion only in relation to Smith’s complaint. 

Case 2:12-cv-00316-WKW-CSC Document 205 Filed 11/18/16 Page 2 of 17
3

A. Smith’s Capital Litigation History

Smith was convicted of capital murder for murder committed during a robbery 

in which he shot and killed a convenience store clerk. Smith v. State, 756 So. 2d 

892, 901 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997). His direct appeal concluded in 2000, Smith v. 

Alabama, 531 U. S. 830 (2000), and his state post-conviction and federal habeas 

proceedings were concluded more than a year ago. Smith v. Thomas, 134 S. Ct. 513 

(2014).

B. Events Leading to Formation of the Midazolam Litigation

From 2002 until 2011, sodium thiopental was the first drug used in the 

ADOC’s three-drug lethal injection protocol. In 2011, the ADOC amended its 

protocol by substituting pentobarbital for sodium thiopental as the first drug. At that 

time, the ADOC made no amendment to the other two drugs administered, 

pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride.

On September 10, 2014, the ADOC amended its execution protocol again, this 

time by substituting midazolam for pentobarbital as the first drug used in its threedrug lethal-injection sequence, and by substituting rocuronium bromide for 

pancuronium bromide as the second drug. On September 11, 2014, the State

disclosed the ADOC’s amended protocol in motions it filed in the Alabama Supreme 

Court to set execution dates for several death-row inmates. (Doc. # 160-4, ¶¶ 24–

28.)

Case 2:12-cv-00316-WKW-CSC Document 205 Filed 11/18/16 Page 3 of 17
4

In June 2015, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Glossip v. Gross, 

135 S. Ct. 2726 (2015), and applied the Court’s decision in Baze v. Rees, 553 U. S. 

35 (2008) (plurality opinion), to Oklahoma’s lethal-injection protocol (which is 

virtually identical to Alabama’s protocol). The Court held that the plaintiffs failed 

to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the use of 

midazolam violated the Eighth Amendment. 

C. Smith’s Claims

Smith’s first cause of action is an Eighth Amendment claim challenging the 

ADOC’s current execution protocol, alleging that the ADOC’s use of midazolam,

the first drug to be administered, is unconstitutional. Specifically, he asserts that 

midazolam will not properly anesthetize him so as to prevent him from feeling an 

unconstitutional level of pain associated with the injection of potassium chloride, the 

third drug. On this premise, he claims that Defendants’ current execution protocol 

creates a “substantial risk of serious harm,” Baze, 553 U.S.at 50, and violates his 

right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to 

the United States Constitution. Instead of midazolam used in a three-drug, lethal 

injection protocol, Smith proposes three alternative methods of execution, using 

Case 2:12-cv-00316-WKW-CSC Document 205 Filed 11/18/16 Page 4 of 17
5

either pentobarbital, sodium thiopental, or a 500-milligram dose of midazolam in a 

one-drug, lethal injection protocol.3 

In his second cause of action, Smith challenges that part of the ADOC’s 

execution protocol known as the consciousness assessment. He claims that it is an 

inadequate method to ensure that he is sufficiently anesthetized prior to being 

injected with the remaining two drugs, which creates a substantial risk of

unconstitutional pain, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Smith’s third cause of action is that his right to meaningful access to the courts 

requires that his counsel, as a witness to the execution, have access to a cellular or 

land-line telephone until the execution is complete. Smith contends that the

ADOC’s policy prohibiting phone access to his counsel during his execution denies 

him that right, in violation of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

II. DISCUSSION

Defendants have moved to dismiss Smith’s complaint in toto, pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for three independent reasons: (1) his 

complaint is subject to dismissal at this juncture, without an evidentiary hearing, 

because it is clear from the face of the complaint that all three claims are time-barred, 

(2) all three claims fail to state a claim for which relief can be granted, and 

 

3 Smith now claims in briefing, filed on November 16, 2016, that 500-mg is a “typo” and 

that he meant “2500-mg followed by continuous infusion.” (Doc. # 201 at 2, n.4.) However, he 

has not moved to amend his complaint.

Case 2:12-cv-00316-WKW-CSC Document 205 Filed 11/18/16 Page 5 of 17
6

(3) because Smith has unreasonably delayed in bringing these claims, his complaint

is subject to dismissal under the doctrine of laches.

A. Statute of Limitations

It is well settled that when the complaint shows on its face that the limitations 

period has expired, a statute-of-limitations defense may be raised on a motion to 

dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See AVCO Corp. v. Precision Air Parts, Inc., 676 F.2d 

494, 495 (11th Cir. 1982) (party may seek dismissal based on statute-of-limitations 

defense pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6); Mann v. Adams Realty Co., 556 F.2d 288 (5th

Cir. 1977); Mooney v. Tallant, 397 F. Supp. 680 (N. D. Ga. 1975). 

1. Eighth Amendment Midazolam Claim 

Smith alleges that the use of midazolam in the ADOC execution protocol 

violates the Eighth Amendment. He recognizes that in order to maintain his

challenge to Alabama’s method of execution, he must “identify a known and 

available alternative method of execution that entails a lesser risk of pain.” Glossip, 

135 S. Ct at 2731. To comply with Glossip, Smith submits that there are alternative 

methods of execution available to Defendants that significantly reduce the risk of an 

unconstitutional level of pain. For instance, he claims that numerous states have 

switched from a two-or-three-drug protocol to a one-drug protocol, and that since 

January 1, 2014, in other states, nearly forty inmates have been executed using “a 

single bolus of pentobarbital, making it the most common method of execution in 

Case 2:12-cv-00316-WKW-CSC Document 205 Filed 11/18/16 Page 6 of 17
7

the United States.” (Doc. # 160-4, ¶ 51.) Smith also proposes two other alternatives: 

the use of either sodium thiopental or a 500-milligram dose of midazolam in a singledrug protocol.

4

 (Doc. # 160-4, ¶¶ 43–68.)

Smith requests a declaratory judgment that Alabama’s current three-drug 

execution protocol is unconstitutional under Baze and Glossip, and that the court 

enjoin Defendants from executing him with inadequate anesthesia and execution 

procedures that violate his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and 

unusual punishment. He acknowledges that from the time Alabama adopted lethal 

injection as its method of execution in 2002, the ADOC has employed a three-drug, 

lethal-injection protocol.5 It is undisputed that from 2002 until 2011, the ADOC 

used sodium thiopental as the first drug in the three-drug protocol, and from 2011

until September 2014, pentobarbital was the first drug used. On September 10, 2014, 

the ADOC amended the protocol again, substituting midazolam for pentobarbital as 

the first drug used.

As alternatives to midazolam in the ADOC’s three-drug protocol, Smith 

proposes the use of either pentobarbital, sodium thiopental, or a 500-milligram dose

 

4

 Smith objects to Glossip’s requirement that he must propose execution alternatives in 

order to challenge a method of execution that he contends is unconstitutional. He emphasizes that 

he is not waiving any potential claims that his rights could be violated by the maladministration of 

the alternatives he proposes. Smith states that he is merely pleading, as the plaintiffs did in Baze, 

that if his proposed execution alternatives work properly and are administered correctly, such 

execution will not create a risk of an unconstitutional level of pain. (Doc. #160-4, at 13 n.27.)

5

 The second drug has always been a paralytic, and the third drug has always been 

potassium chloride.

Case 2:12-cv-00316-WKW-CSC Document 205 Filed 11/18/16 Page 7 of 17
8

of midazolam to be used in a single-drug protocol. (Doc. # 160-4 at 13–18.) He 

does not propose that the ADOC return to its previous use of sodium thiopental or 

pentobarbital in a three-drug protocol. The fact that Smith does not propose that the 

ADOC be required to return to its use of sodium thiopental or pentobarbital as the 

first drug administered in a three-drug protocol is significant because it reveals the 

true nature of his Eighth Amendment claim: Smith is challenging the three-drug,

lethal-injection execution protocol, regardless of the first drug administered, as being 

unconstitutional. In effect, he is challenging the last two drugs, not the first: not 

sodium thiopental, not pentobarbital, not midazolam.

Smith could have challenged the ADOC’s use of a three-drug protocol any 

time after it was implemented fourteen years ago on July 31, 2002, but he failed to 

do so until 2016. Given that his real challenge is to the last two drugs in Alabama’s 

execution protocol, and not to midazolam per se, his midazolam argument is a 

smokescreen, diverting attention from the fact that his Eighth Amendment claim 

challenging the ADOC’s three-drug, lethal-injection protocol is time-barred. 

Smith’s Eighth Amendment method-of-execution claim concerning the threedrug protocol accrued in July 2002 when Alabama switched to lethal injection as its 

method of execution.6 See Ala. Code § 15-18-82.1 (2002). It is well settled that “a 

method of execution claim accrues on the later of the date on which state review is 

 

6

 Before the adoption of lethal injection, electrocution was Alabama’s sole method of 

execution.

Case 2:12-cv-00316-WKW-CSC Document 205 Filed 11/18/16 Page 8 of 17
9

complete, or the date on which the capital litigant becomes subject to a new or 

substantially changed execution protocol.” McNair v. Allen, 515 F.3d 1168, 1174 

(11th Cir. 2008).

Smith’s direct appeal concluded in 2000. Smith was on notice in 2002 that he

was subject to that form of execution rather than electrocution, McNair, 515 F. 3d 

at 1177, and the statute of limitations for his claim began to run on July 31, 2002, 

the effective date of lethal injection executions. The statute of limitations applicable 

to this claim is two years. See Ala. Code § 6-2-38 (1975); McNair, 515 F.3d at 1173. 

Therefore, “absent a significant change in the state’s execution protocol,” Smith was 

required to file his Eighth Amendment method-of-execution claim by July 31, 2004. 

As to the last two drugs in the protocol, Smith has not argued that there has been a

substantial change. Thus, the statute of limitations for Smith’s claim challenging 

Alabama’s use of rocuronium bromide and potassium chloride in lethal injection 

executions expired many years ago.

In an attempt to circumvent this expired statute of limitations, Smith presents

his Eighth Amendment method-of-execution claim as though it originated in 

September 2014, when Alabama announced the substitution of midazolam in the 

ADOC protocol. He contends that this switch to midazolam is a “significant change 

in the state’s execution protocol,” McNair, 515 F.3d at 1177, which would render 

his Eighth Amendment claim timely filed. 

Case 2:12-cv-00316-WKW-CSC Document 205 Filed 11/18/16 Page 9 of 17
10

Smith’s arguments are insufficient to conceal the fact that it is untimely. If

Smith’s challenge were simply to the substitution of midazolam in the three-drug 

protocol, then to comply with Glossip, he would be required to propose an 

alternative drug(s), such as sodium thiopental or pentobarbital, to be used as the first 

drug in the ADOC’s three-drug protocol, essentially a return to the ADOC’s premidazolam protocol. Instead, Smith proposes the use of either pentobarbital, sodium 

thiopental, or a 500-milligram dose of midazolam, administered in a one-drug 

protocol, rather than in a three-drug protocol. These one-drug protocol proposals 

strip away the veneer from Smith’s claim, revealing its true identity: a challenge to 

all three-drug protocols that employ a paralytic as the second drug and potassium 

chloride as the third drug. In his response (Doc. # 170), Smith does not address 

Defendants’ contention that his claim, in actuality, is a challenge against the use of 

any three-drug execution protocol. And this claim accrued long ago. It is clear from 

the face of Smith’s complaint that this claim is untimely and due to be dismissed.

2. Eighth Amendment Consciousness Assessment Claim 

Smith also challenges as unconstitutional that portion of the ADOC’s 

execution protocol known as the “consciousness assessment.” Specifically, he

claims that during an execution, the ADOC employs a procedure that is performed 

by a correctional officer who has no medical training (Doc. # 160-4, ¶¶ 70–71), and 

that this procedure is an inadequate procedure to assess anesthetic depth, all in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. # 160-4, ¶ 77.) Smith requests that 

Case 2:12-cv-00316-WKW-CSC Document 205 Filed 11/18/16 Page 10 of 17
11

Defendants be enjoined from executing him with a constitutionally deficient 

consciousness assessment.

The consciousness assessment has been a mandatory component of the 

ADOC’s execution protocol since 2007. See Arthur v. Thomas, 674 F.3d 1257, 1263

n.6 (11th Cir. 2012) (“As alleged, Alabama assesses an inmate’s consciousness 

through graded stimuli, first calling the inmate’s name, then stroking the inmate’s 

eyelids and finally pinching the inmate’s arm.”); Arthur v. Allen, CV-0722-WS-M, 

2007 WL 4105113, at *2 (S. D. Ala. Nov. 15, 2007) (“The modifications to the 

protocol consist of the following additions to the preexisting procedures: 

(1) examination of the prisoner by an execution team member, following 

administration of the [first drug] but before administration of the [second drug], to 

assess his consciousness (by calling his name, gently stroking his eyelashes, and 

pinching his arm).”).

Smith asserts that the ADOC’s consciousness assessment is inadequate to

determine the depth of anesthesia because it is performed by a correctional officer

who has received no medical training. He points out that “[a]nesthesiologists receive 

extensive training in order to assess and monitor a patient’s depth of anesthesia. Not 

only must they graduate from college and medical school, they must follow this with 

four years of training before they can be certified to practice anesthesiology without 

supervision.” (Doc. # 160-4, ¶ 72.) He also states that anesthesiologists rely on 

medical “devices that monitor vital signs” in assessing anesthetic depth. (Id., ¶ 73.) 

Case 2:12-cv-00316-WKW-CSC Document 205 Filed 11/18/16 Page 11 of 17
12

Reading between the lines of Smith’s claim, he appears to contend that in order for 

the ADOC’s consciousness assessment to pass muster under the Eighth Amendment,

the correctional officer who performs it must have received medical training to 

assess anesthetic depth, similar to that of an anesthesiologist, and that medical 

equipment must be used to monitor vital signs. 

It is undisputed that the ADOC adopted the consciousness assessment as part 

of its execution protocol in October of 2007. For purposes of this discussion, it can 

be assumed that this addition to the ADOC’s protocol is a “significant change in the 

state’s execution protocol.” McNair, 515 F.3d at 1177; but see Arthur v. Ala. Dep’t 

of Corrs., 285 F. App’x 707, 705 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[I]t does not appear that 

Alabama’s 26 October 2007 minimal changes to its execution protocol materially 

changed the procedures that were adopted in 2002.”). The statute of limitations for 

a constitutional challenge to the ADOC’s consciousness assessment is two years. 

See Alabama Code § 6-2-38 (1975); McNair, 515 F. 3d at 1173. Thus, Smith had to 

file any Eighth Amendment claim challenging the consciousness assessment by 

October of 2009, but he delayed filing this lawsuit until April 15, 2016.

Smith asserts that this claim is timely because it is based on facts which were 

not known about the consciousness assessment until it was performed during the 

Christopher Brooks execution in January 2016. Specifically, Smith alleges:

74. The events of Christopher Brooks’[s] execution indicate that 

Defendants’ crude assessment conducted by an individual with no 

Case 2:12-cv-00316-WKW-CSC Document 205 Filed 11/18/16 Page 12 of 17
13

medical training creates a substantial risk of pain in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment.

75. Mr. Brooks’[s] left eye opened after the consciousness 

assessment and, assuming they even noticed, no one from the 

ADOC took any action.

76. The fact that Mr. Brooks’[s] eye opened indicates that he was 

feeling sensation contemporaneous with, or prior to, injection of the 

paralytic. Therefore, he was sensate at the time he was executed by 

injection of potassium chloride.

(Doc. # 160-4, ¶¶ 74–76.) 

The foregoing allegations reflect that Smith’s claim consists of a general 

complaint concerning the adequacy of the consciousness assessment. There is no 

allegation that Brooks’s execution involved any change, much less a significant 

change, in the ADOC’s execution protocol concerning the consciousness assessment 

or that its performance is related to midazolam becoming a part of the lethal-injection 

protocol in 2014. Similar to another general challenge to the ADOC’s consciousness 

assessment that was dismissed as being time-barred, “[N]othing prevented [Smith] 

from challenging the training and qualifications of ADOC’s execution personnel” 

concerning the consciousness assessment “within Alabama’s two-year statute of 

limitations, well before midazolam was introduced into the protocol.” Boyd v. 

Myers, 2:14-cv-1017-WKW, 2015 WL 5852948, at *5 (M. D. Ala. Oct. 7, 2015). 

Like the claim in Boyd, Smith’s claim has “[nothing] to do with the State’s switch 

from pentobarbital to midazolam, and [Smith does] not allege anything specific 

about midazolam in [this] claim [].” Id.

Case 2:12-cv-00316-WKW-CSC Document 205 Filed 11/18/16 Page 13 of 17
14

Consequently, on the face of Smith’s complaint, his challenge to the adequacy 

of the consciousness assessment is untimely and due to be dismissed as time-barred.

3. First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment Access-to-Court Claim 

Smith further claims that the ADOC’s policy prohibiting an inmate’s counsel 

who is witnessing his execution from having access to a cellular or a land-line phone

during the execution violates his right of access to the court under the First, Eighth, 

and Fourteenth Amendments. (Doc. # 160-4, ¶¶ 78–85.) Smith contends that 

enforcement of this ADOC policy will leave his counsel unable to contact the court

and seek intervention if something arises during his execution that warrants a stay 

or other relief. (Doc. # 160-4, ¶ 79.) Smith asserts that the ADOC’s policy 

prohibiting visitors from possessing cellular phones or devices within a facility 

should not apply to an inmate’s counsel visiting the institution as a designated 

witness to an execution and that such policy improperly interferes with the 

attorney/client relationship.

As relief, Smith seeks to invalidate the ADOC’s policy prohibiting the 

possession of cellular telephones, as applied to designated attorney witnesses, to 

protect his right of meaningful access to the court and to be free from cruel and 

unusual punishment. Alternatively, Smith requests an order directing Defendants to 

provide a land-line telephone in the viewing room set aside for his witnesses, to 

which an attorney witness may have unfettered access during the execution. (Doc. 

# 160-4 at 25.) 

Case 2:12-cv-00316-WKW-CSC Document 205 Filed 11/18/16 Page 14 of 17
15

It is undisputed that the ADOC’s long-standing policy prohibits visitors to a 

correctional facility from possessing cellular telephones or wireless devices within 

the correctional facility. This policy applies to all visitors, even those who also 

happen to be counsel for a death-row inmate and are at the facility as designated 

witnesses to an execution. There is no exception for attorneys in this instance; a 

visitor is a visitor. The ADOC has not recently changed this policy; it has been in 

effect for many years.

To reiterate, “[a]ll constitutional claims brought under § 1983 are tort actions, 

subject to the statute of limitations governing personal injury actions in the state 

where the § 1983 action has been brought,” McNair, 515 F. 3d at 1173. The statute

of limitations in Alabama is two years. Id. It is well settled that “absent a significant 

change in the state’s execution protocol,” Smith was required to file this claim within 

two years “of the date on which state review is complete, or the date on which the 

capital litigant becomes subject to a new or substantially changed protocol.” Id.

at 1177. The statute of limitations for Smith expired on July 31, 2004.

Smith argues that this claim is timely because the factual basis for this claim

originates from the execution of Christopher Brooks in January 2016, where 

Defendants denied Brooks’s counsel’s request for permission to possess a cell phone 

during his execution or to have access to a land-line telephone at that time. Smith’s 

argument is unpersuasive. The events surrounding Christopher Brooks’s execution 

did not give rise to this claim; neither do they render this claim timely. Smith makes

Case 2:12-cv-00316-WKW-CSC Document 205 Filed 11/18/16 Page 15 of 17
16

no allegation that the ADOC has ever allowed visitors to its facilities to have cell 

phone access or other phone access during an execution or prior to the adoption of 

the ADOC’s current protocol in September 2014. This claim is simply another 

belatedly-raised claim that could have been raised years ago. For this reason, 

Smith’s claim is time-barred on the face of the complaint and due to be dismissed, 

similar to the First Amendment claim in Roberts v. Myers, 2:14-CV-1028-WKW, 

2015 WL 1198666, at *2-3 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 16, 2015) (Doc. # 21).

B. Failure to State a Claim for Relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and

the Doctrine of Laches

In addition to being time-barred, Defendants also submit that Smith’s 

complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 

because it fails to state a claim for which can be granted and because the complaint 

is barred by the doctrine of laches. These aspects of Defendants’ motion were 

addressed in the briefing. Because the court concludes that Smith’s complaint is due 

to be dismissed because all claims are time-barred, the court need not consider 

Defendants’ remaining arguments for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to 

state a claim and for dismissal under the doctrine of laches.

Case 2:12-cv-00316-WKW-CSC Document 205 Filed 11/18/16 Page 16 of 17
17

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendants’ Consolidated Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 160) is 

GRANTED IN PART, only with respect to Plaintiff Ronald Bert Smith. The motion

remains pending as to Plaintiffs Charles Lee Burton, Robert Bryant Melson, 

Geoffrey Todd West, and Torrey Twane McNabb. 

2. From the face of the Complaint, Smith’s action is time-barred and is 

DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

3. Judgment is entered in Defendants’ favor on Smith’s action, Ronald 

Bert Smith v. Jefferson S. Dunn, et al., 2:16-CV-0269-WKW (M.D. Ala.).

4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), and the court’s 

finding that there is no just reason for delay, a Final Judgment in Defendants’ favor 

on all claims asserted by Smith will be entered contemporaneously with this 

Memorandum Opinion and Order.

5. This is a FINAL and APPEALABLE Order as to Ronald Bert Smith.

DONE this 18th day of November, 2016.

/s/ W. Keith Watkins

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:12-cv-00316-WKW-CSC Document 205 Filed 11/18/16 Page 17 of 17