Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_14-cv-00184/USCOURTS-alsd-1_14-cv-00184-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DONALD E. GARDNER, III,

AIS #283161,

Plaintiff,

:

:

:

:

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 14-184-KD-M

:

SHERIFF MACK, et al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by an 

Alabama prison inmate, Donald E. Gardner, III, proceeding 

pro se and in forma pauperis, was referred to the 

undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 

Rule 72.2(c)(4), and is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s 

Complaint (Doc. 9), and Defendants Sheriff Mack, Cpl. 

Johnson, Officer Rowell, Cpl. Robinson, Sgt. Means, and 

Officer Scott’s Answer and Special Report.1 (Docs. 24, 25). 

The Court has converted these documents into a Motion for 

																																																							 1 On the first page of Plaintiff’s Complaint, he lists 

Cpl. McCall as a Defendant, but he does not name Cpl. 

McCall as a Defendant in section III. B., of the Complaint;

counsel for defense includes Cpl. McCall in the Answer and 

Special Report; however, the Court does not treat Cpl. 

McCall as a named Defendant since he or she does not appear 

in the proper section of the Complaint. However, to the 

extent that any claims are indeed alleged against Cpl. 

McCall, this Report and Recommendation applies to those 

claims, as well as any other stray or rogue allegations 

against other officials mentioned in Plaintiff’s diatribe 

to the undersigned.

Case 1:14-cv-00184-KD-M Document 31 Filed 12/08/14 Page 1 of 23
2

Summary Judgment (Doc. 14), and, after consideration of 

such, and for the reasons set out below, it is recommended 

that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and 

that all claims asserted against them by Plaintiff be 

dismissed with prejudice, and that judgment be entered in 

favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff.

I. Facts and Proceedings

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes, and 

Defendants point out, that Plaintiff originally filed his 

seventy-three-plus count, sixty-four page Complaint on an 

outdated form, and without the $350 filing fee or a motion 

for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees. (Doc. 1). 

Plaintiff was accordingly ordered to file his complaint on 

an updated form in conjunction with the proper filing fee 

or motion for leave to proceed without the prepayment of 

fees. (Doc. 2). Plaintiff was advised in the order that 

the new complaint would wholly supersede the old complaint 

and that he shall not rely on the former filing. (Id.). 

Plaintiff failed to comply with this specific instruction, 

and instead filled out the updated form referring to his 

originally filed complaint throughout the new form with a 

Motion to Convert Plaintiff’s Initial/Prior Complaint Into 

Plaintiff’s “New” Complaint. (Doc. 4). Plaintiff also 

requested leave to proceed without prepayment of fees. 

Case 1:14-cv-00184-KD-M Document 31 Filed 12/08/14 Page 2 of 23
3

(Doc. 6). The Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed 

without the prepayment of fees, but denied his motion to 

convert the old complaint into the new complaint. (Doc. 

7). Plaintiff eventually filed a properly formatted 

Complaint (Doc. 9), on which Defendants were served and are 

now before the Court on their Answer and Special Report 

that the Court converted into a Motion for Summary 

Judgment. (Docs. 24, 25, 26). 

In reviewing Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court found 

Plaintiff’s Complaint to be a poor “copy-and-paste,” nearnonsensical compilation of allegations seemingly from other 

filings from other cases, all of which may or may not be 

directly related to the claims Plaintiff purports in the 

present action. In their brief, Defendants also notate 

these same inconsistencies, and ask that the Court dismiss 

Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to comply with the 

Court’s previous orders. (Doc. 25 at 2). Though a failure 

to comply with this Court’s orders is a ground for 

automatic dismissal, the Court will nonetheless cipher 

through Plaintiff’s claims, resolving them as the law 

applies thereto. As Defendants, Plaintiff names, Sheriff 

Mack, Cpl. Johnson, Officer Rowell, Cpl. Robinson, Sgt. 

Means, and Officer Scott. (Doc. 9 at 12-14). 

Case 1:14-cv-00184-KD-M Document 31 Filed 12/08/14 Page 3 of 23
4

At the time of the events in question, Plaintiff was 

being housed at the Baldwin County Jail awaiting sentencing 

and his prison assignment with the Alabama Department of 

Corrections (“ALDOC”). Apparently, since filing this 

Complaint, Plaintiff has been assigned to Fountain 

Correctional Facility in Atmore, Alabama where he presently 

resides. The Court has discerned from both parties’ 

submissions that Plaintiff’s allegations stem from three 

separate incidences wherein jail officials were forced to 

remove Plaintiff from his cell for disciplinary reasons. 

Plaintiff was first booked into the jail on June 7, 

2011; he was released on July 14, 2011, but rearrested on 

September 7, 2011, remaining incarcerated at the jail until 

May 1, 2012, when ALDOC obtained custody of him. (Doc. 25 

at 3-4). During his stay at the jail, Plaintiff was a 

problem inmate incurring multiple disciplinary infractions, 

which eventually led Plaintiff to sharing a cell with 

inmate Brent Jacoby, who was also an extremely troubled and 

difficult inmate. (Doc. 25-2 at 2). 

As their total body of evidence, Defendants submit 

each officer’s affidavit, Plaintiff’s booking documents, 

audio and video clips of the interviews between jail 

officials and Plaintiff, as well as audio and video clips 

of the altercations involving Plaintiff, plus the documents 

Case 1:14-cv-00184-KD-M Document 31 Filed 12/08/14 Page 4 of 23
5

and disciplinary/incident reports related to each 

altercation. 

The audio and video clips were submitted on two 

compact discs, Exhibit F and Exhibit H. On Exhibit F, there 

are three audio and video recorded interviews of Plaintiff 

being led by Investigator Griffith. Though it is unclear 

to the Court whether each meeting took place before or 

after the altercations, the Court finds the timing of the 

meetings irrelevant. Rather, it is the substance of the 

meeting and the way the jail officials treated Plaintiff 

that bear the most weight on Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

On Exhibit H, there are three audio and video clips of 

each altercation involving Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends 

in each recording and throughout the Complaint that his 

treatment during the events was unconstitutional. However, 

Defendants’ video submissions depict Plaintiff’s treatment 

differently, and nowhere near unconstitutional. For that 

reason, the Court relied heavily on the evidentiary 

materials submitted by Defendants, as we found Plaintiff’s 

recollection of the events to be a convoluted, near 

nonsensical account of the events, presented through misnumbered pages and paragraphs throughout the entire 

Complaint. (See generally Doc. 9). 

Case 1:14-cv-00184-KD-M Document 31 Filed 12/08/14 Page 5 of 23
6

On Exhibit F, the Court gathers that at least one 

interview took place before the altercations, and one 

interview maybe took place after, though none of the 

interviews are clearly dated. In the first interview,

prior to the initial altercation,2 Plaintiff sent a letter 

to Sheriff Mack regarding multiple issues that concerned 

him at the jail. It is jail policy and procedure to 

investigate grievances and requests, such as Plaintiff’s, 

by the appropriate staff member with the lowest level of 

command, with appeals climbing the chain of command ending 

with Sheriff Mack. (Doc. 25-1 at 3). Investigator 

Griffith, along with other jail officials, responded to and 

personally met with Plaintiff to discuss his concerns. 

This meeting was held in a conference room with a table and

chairs, with Plaintiff sitting at the end of the table, and 

the other officials seated along either side of the table. 

A respectful and considerate conversation was had between 

Investigator Griffith, the other jail officials and 

Plaintiff. (See Ex. F). This respect and consideration is 

recurrent throughout all three recorded interviews 

submitted by Defendants. (Id.). The interviews covered a 

																																																							 2 Defendants state that this interview took place on 

April 13, 2012, approximately ten days before the first 

altercation between jail officers and Plaintiff. (See 

Affidavit of Huey Hoss Mack, Doc. 25-1 at 4). 

Case 1:14-cv-00184-KD-M Document 31 Filed 12/08/14 Page 6 of 23
7

long, itemized list of Plaintiff’s menial concerns 

including: access to “good” soap and other toiletry items 

through commissary, access to paper, envelopes and pens for 

legal endeavors, whether jail guards speak sternly or 

tenderly to inmates at the jail, why Plaintiff does not 

have access to a designated mental health care specialist, 

why there is not a rabbi on staff to bless his meals and 

approve them as kosher, why there is not a rabbi available 

to him to lead him in his Jewish faith and “religiously 

cleanse” him, why his food gets cold before he receives it, 

why there is not a “shower crew” designated to clean the 

showers since inmates don’t want to clean the showers 

themselves, why he can’t get extra towels, why there are 

roaches and ants in the jail, why he can’t be in a cell 

alone instead of with other inmates who claim to have 

murdered people, why he can’t utilize a “kiosk” to place 

orders for items from the canteen, why the air vents are 

caked with dust and “dander,” and why there is no air 

conditioning in E-dorm, among many other complaints from 

Plaintiff. (See Id.). Though no violations were found 

regarding any of Plaintiff’s laundry list of complaints, 

Plaintiff was nonetheless given an opportunity to suggest a 

remedy for each item that was discussed, which he did. The 

officials noted that that some of the suggested remedies 

Case 1:14-cv-00184-KD-M Document 31 Filed 12/08/14 Page 7 of 23
8

were not feasible (due to federal, state and county laws, 

budget constraints and availability of volunteers for 

religious services, etc.), but that some of his suggestions

could potentially be incorporated at the jail. (Id.).

Concluding the meeting, the jail officials asked 

Plaintiff if he was satisfied with how the meeting 

proceeded, whether he was satisfied with the officials’ 

agreement to implement some of the feasible remedies 

Plaintiff suggested, and whether Plaintiff felt like he was 

treated fairly and listened to by the officials, to which 

Plaintiff gave a resounding positive response indicating 

how appreciative he was of them taking their time to sit 

down with him and go over his complaints. The jail 

officials even extended sincere apologies to Plaintiff 

regarding his feelings of mistreatment and discontent 

during his stay at the Baldwin County Jail. Plaintiff 

shook each official’s hand as the meeting wrapped up and 

thanked them for their efforts. 

The second interview covered similar topics, and was 

conducted in a similar question-and-answer, respectful 

manner. The third interview appears to take place after 

the physical altercations, as he questions whether he is 

being recorded and indicates that he does not wish to be 

recorded talking about the events that had occurred. This 

Case 1:14-cv-00184-KD-M Document 31 Filed 12/08/14 Page 8 of 23
9

interview likewise covers similar topics as the first two, 

and is conducted in the same question-and-answer, 

respectful manner.

The audio and video evidence of the first altercation, 

which apparently took place on April 23, 2014, shows a 

number of officers approaching Plaintiff’s cell in response

to him banging on his cell door excessively asking to speak 

to a sergeant. (See Ex. H, Track 1). As the officers 

reached his cell, Plaintiff ducked under a blanket in nearfetal position while still yelling to see a sergeant. 

(Id.). As the officers opened his cell to pull him out,

Plaintiff went limp, becoming dead weight and dragged the 

blanket out of the cell with him. Plaintiff continued to 

refuse to cooperate and held the blanket over his head as 

the officers attempted to pull it off of him. To achieve 

Plaintiff’s compliance, he was maced in the head/neck area

until he cooperated. At this point, Plaintiff is laying on 

his belly with his hands cuffed behind his back and 

shouting that “this is unconstitutional treatment, man, 

f***! . . . I’m not resisting! . . . Y’all [sic] want to 

f*** with me, man, I didn’t do s***! I was not resisting! 

I want a sergeant!” (Id.). The officers then lifted 

Plaintiff to his feet and walked him to a water closet to 

be decontaminated from the mace. Plaintiff alleges in the 

Case 1:14-cv-00184-KD-M Document 31 Filed 12/08/14 Page 9 of 23
10

Complaint that the closet was filthy and smelled of dirty 

mop water and that he did not want to be decontaminated 

with dirty mop water when he could be rinsed off at an eye 

fountain down the hall. The Court acknowledges that there 

were mop buckets stored in the closet where Plaintiff 

refused decontamination, but we also note that, on the 

video, the closet was well lit and did not appear to be 

unclean or unkempt. The officers instructed Plaintiff to 

bend over toward the faucet so he could be decontaminated 

from the mace, but Plaintiff refused, belligerently 

stating, “I want a rag to wipe my face. Don’t spray my 

face. Don’t spray my face!” (Id.). Plaintiff was then 

walked out of the water closet and placed in a restraint 

chair, still yelling that he didn’t want his face sprayed, 

and that he wanted to speak a sergeant. (Id.). The 

officers asked him again if he wanted to be decontaminated 

and Plaintiff said yes; the officers loosed the restraints, 

and escorted him back to the closet where Plaintiff again 

became hostile because he didn’t want to be decontaminated 

with water from the “mop sink” because it is where “filth 

and dark, nasty, used mop water goes and is not sanitary.” 

(Doc. 1 at 5). Plaintiff contends repeatedly in the 

Complaint that he “did not want water from the mopsink 

[sic] sprayed in his eyes or on him at all; as Plaintiff 

Case 1:14-cv-00184-KD-M Document 31 Filed 12/08/14 Page 10 of 23
11

knows the water would be unsanitary and that medical has an 

eyewash fountain which is specifically designed for washing 

chemicals out of the eyes.” (Id.). 

Plaintiff was then decontaminated with the running 

water from the sink in the water closet. Based on the 

video evidence, the water faucet over which Plaintiff 

protested did not appear to be particularly unsanitary, or 

unsanitary at all. There were indeed mop buckets in the 

closet, but the water used to decontaminate Plaintiff was 

fresh from the tap- just as it would be from any other 

faucet in the building. The room was well lit and there 

did not appear to be anything wrong with the water when 

Plaintiff was hosed down for decontamination. Plaintiff’s 

face never touched the surface of the sink, nor did his 

hands as they were cuffed up to the back. 

Plaintiff became even more volatile toward the team of 

officers after he was decontaminated, attempting to

erratically wipe his face all over one officer as they 

replaced him in the restraint chair. Plaintiff’s action 

appeared to the officers as an attempt to bite, so they 

hustled him a bit harder into the restraint chair-- though, 

notably, without using excessive force, despite what

Plaintiff alleges. In response, Plaintiff alleged that the 

officers were choking him and handling him too aggressively 

Case 1:14-cv-00184-KD-M Document 31 Filed 12/08/14 Page 11 of 23
12

since he “was not resisting.” Plaintiff was then rolled to 

the hallway next to the control room, where there is 

frequent travel by jail staff and thus, constant monitoring 

by jail staff. (Doc. 25-1 at 4). Plaintiff was left in 

the restraint chair3 until he was adjudged to be calm enough 

to no longer pose a threat to himself or others. 

During the time that Plaintiff was in the restraint 

chair, he alleges that he was forced to urinate on himself, 

that the urine reactivated the mace, and he was left with 

no medical attention to the alleviate the burning. (Doc. 9 

at 6). The video evidence submitted by Defendants does not 

indicate whether Plaintiff urinated on himself or not. 

Around 9:05 p.m., Plaintiff was released from the 

restraint chair and was escorted back to his cell to 

retrieve his personal property so he could be moved to 

another cell away from the other problem inmate Jacoby. 

(Doc. 25-2 at 3). Plaintiff was instructed to gather his 

things, but instead, Plaintiff refused and just sat on his 

																																																							 3 According to Sheriff Mack’s affidavit, “inmates in a 

restraint chair are checked by nursing staff at least every 

two hours. At the shift supervisor’s discretion, inmates 

are removed from the restraint chair and returned to their 

cells. The Corrections Center policies regarding restraint 

chairs are followed by all members of the Corrections 

Center staff. Inmates, including Plaintiff, are never 

placed in a restraint chair as punishment. Restraint 

chairs are only utilized when an inmate threatens physical 

harm to themselves, Corrections Center staff or another 

inmate.” (Doc. 25-1 at 4). 

Case 1:14-cv-00184-KD-M Document 31 Filed 12/08/14 Page 12 of 23
13

bed. (Id.). The second video recording begins here when 

the second extraction began. As the officers approached 

Plaintiff’s cell to move him, Plaintiff alleged that he was 

being discriminated against, but he gave no basis for that 

discrimination and continued to refuse to pack his things. 

(See Ex. H., Cell Move Track 2). Additional backup was 

called and Plaintiff reluctantly complied. During the 

move, Plaintiff repeatedly insulted Defendant McCall by 

calling him “Uncle Tom.” When an officer pointed out 

Plaintiff’s unnecessary racist remarks, Plaintiff stated 

that he actually has an Uncle Tom and was referring to him 

in that sense. (Id.). Plaintiff further insulted McCall 

by referring to him as “boy” any time McCall instructed him 

to do something. (Id.). 

Once Plaintiff was secured alone in his new cell, the 

officers turned the intercom on and were able to hear 

Plaintiff flushing the toilet multiple times after 

apparently blocking the toilet in an attempt to flood his 

cell. Defendant Means and McCall responded to the flushing 

and briefly sprayed Plaintiff indirectly with pepper spray 

to subdue him. Plaintiff contends that he was “spray 

painted” with pepper spray down the back side of his body, 

stopping at his knees. (Doc. 9 at 7). Though the video 

does not show Plaintiff being “spray-painted” with mace, 

Case 1:14-cv-00184-KD-M Document 31 Filed 12/08/14 Page 13 of 23
14

the Court is aware that it could have happened prior to the 

recording starting. Whether Plaintiff was “spray-painted” 

or not, it is plain to see that Plaintiff had flooded his 

cell, posing a legitimate security concern, therefore, a 

longer burst of mace would not be unlikely or unnecessary 

in such a tumultuous situation. 

Due to Plaintiff’s aggressive attitude and refusal to 

cooperate, Means and McCall called for back up; however, in 

the meantime, Plaintiff broke the sprinkler head in his 

cell, causing the fire alarm to go off and water to begin 

pouring throughout the building. Both Plaintiff and other 

inmates began cheering. When the team of officers arrived 

at Plaintiff’s cell, the situation was dangerous and 

chaotic. The lights were strobing, the alarms were going 

off, and the floors were extremely slippery due to the 

pouring water from the ceiling and the flooding toilet from 

Plaintiff’s cell. The officers’ ability to communicate was 

also impeded. 

According to Defendant Means’ affidavit, any time the 

officers attempt to remove Plaintiff from a situation, “he 

stiffens up and refuses to cooperate . . . It is very 

difficult and potentially dangerous to both the officers 

and the inmate to move somebody who is basically dead 

weight . . . (particularly when there is water 

Case 1:14-cv-00184-KD-M Document 31 Filed 12/08/14 Page 14 of 23
15

everywhere).” (Doc. 25-2 at 4). The officers dragged 

Plaintiff out of his cell, and sprayed him again with a 

longer burst of pepper spray since the first, shorter and 

indirect burst of spray was ineffective. Plaintiff was 

later decontaminated and placed in the restraint chair to 

prevent him from causing any more chaos. Plaintiff was 

yelling loudly during the entire event. 

Even while in the restraint chair, Plaintiff continued 

to yell, “I’m not resisting! All I want to do is talk to a 

major! You’re violating my constitutional rights!” (See 

Ex. H, Second Cell Extraction, Track 3). In an attempt to 

incite even more lunacy in the jail, Plaintiff hollered 

from the restraint chair to other inmates to break more 

sprinkler heads. (Doc. 25-10 at 1-5). In addition to 

potentially inciting a riot from the chair, Plaintiff 

threatened Defendant Robinson that he would kill Robinson’s 

wife and children when he got out of prison. (Doc. 25-3 at 

3). Defendant Robinson admittedly responded with his 

choice of profanity, but the two later apologized to each 

other for the words they exchanged. (Id.). 

Against Defendant Mack, Plaintiff alleges deliberate 

indifference, failure to remedy a wrong, failure to train, 

and inadequate/unconstitutional policies/customs.” (Doc. 9 

at 12). Against Defendants Johnson, Rowell, Robinson, and 

Case 1:14-cv-00184-KD-M Document 31 Filed 12/08/14 Page 15 of 23
16

Means, he alleges deliberate indifference and excessive 

force. (Id. at 12-14). Against Defendant Scott, he 

alleges “failing to protect and/or intervene.” (Id. at 14). 

For relief, Plaintiff requests “declaratory relief 

(Declaration the defendants violated Plaintiffs [sic] 

rights), Award punitive damages in the amount of $15,000 

nominal damages, and compensatory damages ($25,000).” 

(Doc. 9 at 16). For the following reasons, the Court does 

not find sufficient evidence for trial or that Defendants 

violated Plaintiff’s rights.

II. Discussion

In analyzing the propriety of a motion for summary 

judgment, the Court begins with the following basic 

principles. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure grant 

this Court authority under Rule 56 to render “judgment as a 

matter of law” to the party who moves for summary judgment. 

FED.R.CIV.P. 56(a). Summary judgment is proper “if the 

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and 

admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, 

show that there is no genuine issue as to any material 

fact. . . .” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 

(1986). The Court must view the evidence produced by “the 

nonmoving party, and all factual inferences arising from 

it, in the light most favorable to” that party. Barfield 

Case 1:14-cv-00184-KD-M Document 31 Filed 12/08/14 Page 16 of 23
17

v. Brierton, 883 F.2d 923, 934 (11th Cir. 1989). However, 

Rule 56(e) states that:

If a party fails to properly support an 

assertion of fact or fails to properly 

address another party’s assertion of 

fact as required by Rule 56(c), the 

court may:

(1) give an opportunity to properly 

support or address the fact;

(2) consider the fact undisputed for 

purposes of the motion; 

(3) grant summary judgment if the 

motion and supporting materials—

including the facts considered 

undisputed—show that the movant is 

entitled to it; or

(4) issue any other appropriate order.

FED.R.CIV.P. 56(e). “[T]here is no issue for trial unless 

there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party 

for a jury to return a verdict for that party. . . . If the 

evidence is merely colorable, . . . or is not significantly 

probative, . . . summary judgment may be granted.” 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 

(1986) (internal citations omitted). “Summary judgment is 

mandated where a party fails to make a showing sufficient 

to establish the existence of an element essential to that 

party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden 

of proof at trial.” Custom Mfg. and Eng’g, Inc. v. Midway 

Servs., Inc., 508 F.3d 641, 647 (11th Cir. 2007).

A. Excessive Use of Force

Case 1:14-cv-00184-KD-M Document 31 Filed 12/08/14 Page 17 of 23
18

To establish an Eighth Amendment claim, a plaintiff 

must prove both an objective and subjective component. 

First, the wrongdoing must be objectively “harmful enough” 

to establish a constitutional violation, and second, a

plaintiff must show that “the officials act[ed] with a 

sufficiently culpable state of mind,” i.e., they acted 

“maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson v. 

McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-8 (1992). The Court will analyze 

the objective component first. 

The objective component of an excessive force claim 

“necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de 

minimus uses of physical force, provided that the use of 

force is not of a sort repugnant to the conscience of 

mankind.” Id. Consequently, Plaintiff may only recover 

compensatory and punitive damages if he sustained an injury 

that is greater than de minimis as a result of the 

Defendants’ use of force. Harris v. Garner, supra, 190

F.3d 1279, 1286 (11th Cir. 1999), vacated, reh’g granted en 

banc, 197 F.3d 1059 (11th Cir. 1999), vacated in part and 

reinstated in part on reh’g, 216 F.3d 970 (11th Cir. 2000).

Though Hudson did not define de minimus, it did suggest 

“that [the] degree of injury received is relevant to 

determining whether more than de minimus uses of physical 

Case 1:14-cv-00184-KD-M Document 31 Filed 12/08/14 Page 18 of 23
19

force was used.” Milton v. Delmore, 2012 WL 750755, at *3 

(S.D.Ala. Feb. 13, 2012)(unpublished)(citation omitted).

The Court does not find that Plaintiff has suffered an 

injury greater than de minimis as a result of any of 

Defendants’ actions. “This Court has evaluated other 

prisoner injuries to determine whether the use of force was 

excessive or not, and found that more severe uses of force 

than that complained of by Plaintiff were insufficient to 

constitute excessive force.”4 Id. Plaintiff does not 

allege any lasting or ongoing injuries as a result of these 

situations he created or the amount of force used to 

eradicate them; nor have any medical records been provided 

which indicate such an injury. There is no indication that 

Plaintiff requested to see a doctor or to receive medical 

care (beyond wiping his eyes of the mace) as a result to 

any of the events that took place. Plaintiff does not 

allege a single scratch, cut or bruise. 

																																																							 4 See Walker v. Thames, 2001 WL 394911, *6 (S.D.Ala. 

Mar. 30, 2001)(unpublished)(finding where a scratch 

resulting from a correctional officer's pushing, shoving, 

and hitting in order for the inmate to get back to work did 

not constitute excessive force); Lanier v. Fralick, 2000 WL 

1844679, *1–2, 5–6 (S.D.Ala. Oct. 24, 2000)(unpublished) 

(finding where plaintiff received scratches on the elbow, 

skin tearing behind the ear, abrasion on the shoulder, and 

felt jaw pain resulting from a correctional officer pushing 

plaintiff into a glass window while taking plaintiff to a 

holding cell did not constitute excessive force).

Case 1:14-cv-00184-KD-M Document 31 Filed 12/08/14 Page 19 of 23
20

Even a liberal construction of Plaintiff’s Complaint 

does not satisfy the “more than de minimis injury” inquiry 

to sustain a claim for compensatory or punitive damages as 

a result of being pepper sprayed or placed in a restraint 

chair. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed 

to satisfy the objective component, and that Defendants’ 

use of force was de minimus and not of the sort repugnant 

to the conscience of mankind. See Hudson at 9-10. Given 

that Plaintiff must prove both objective and subjective 

prongs of an Eighth Amendment analysis, the Court will end 

its inquiry here, and not address the subjective element.

Likewise, given the Court’s finding that Defendants’ 

use of force was not excessive, it follows that Plaintiff’s 

claims for deliberate indifference and failure to protect 

and/or intervene fail as a matter of law. Plaintiff also 

fails to provide a single shred of evidence sufficient to 

prove that Defendant Mack failed to supervise his employees 

or that he maintained inadequate policies or customs at the 

jail. Plaintiff even admitted in the interview videos that 

he was pleased with the way his complaints were being 

handled by jail staff. (See Ex. F). 

In addition to the Court’s initial finding that 

Plaintiff fails to meet his burden of proof, the Court 

finds Plaintiff’s allegations to be conclusory and 

Case 1:14-cv-00184-KD-M Document 31 Filed 12/08/14 Page 20 of 23
21

unsupported by the record, and it is well settled that a 

conclusion cannot be taken as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); see also Leigh v. Warner Bros., 

Inc., 212 F.3d 1210, 1217 (11th Cir. 2000)(“[t]his court 

has consistently held that conclusory allegations without 

specific supporting facts have no probative value”); 

Fullman v. Graddick, 739 F.2d 553, 556-57 (11th Cir. 

1984)(a plaintiff’s mere verification of conclusory 

allegations is not sufficient to oppose a motion for 

summary judgment).		 

Furthermore, the Court finds Plaintiff’s version of 

events to be completely radical and fantastical, and wholly 

rebutted by the audio and video evidence submitted by 

Defendants. As a result, the Court does not accept as true 

Plaintiff’s version of the events in question, and instead, 

relies wholly on Defendants’ evidentiary submissions. See 

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007)(“When opposing

parties tell two different stories, one of which is 

blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable 

jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that 

version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for 

summary judgment.”); Vicks v. Knight, 380 Fed. Appx. 847, 

851 (11th Cir. 2010)(unpublished).

Adopting Defendants’ evidence as the appropriate 

Case 1:14-cv-00184-KD-M Document 31 Filed 12/08/14 Page 21 of 23
22

version of the facts for the purposes of ruling on this 

Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court finds that there has 

been no constitutional violation of Plaintiff’s rights, and 

that his claims fail completely as a matter of law. There 

is no evidence which would favor Plaintiff’s version of the 

situation, and thus, the Court finds that no jury could 

return a verdict in Plaintiff’s favor based on the evidence 

presented. 

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court recommends that 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be granted, and 

that each claim in Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with 

prejudice as to each Defendant. 

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be 

served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any 

party who objects to this recommendation or anything in it 

must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of 

this document, file specific written objections with the 

Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 

FED.R.CIV.P. 72(B); S.D. ALA. L.R.72.4. In order to be 

specific, an objection must identify the specific finding 

or recommendation to which objection is made, state the 

Case 1:14-cv-00184-KD-M Document 31 Filed 12/08/14 Page 22 of 23
23

basis for the objection, and specify the place in the 

Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation where the 

disputed determination is found. An objection that merely 

incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before 

the Magistrate Judge is not specific.

DONE this 8th day of December, 2014.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00184-KD-M Document 31 Filed 12/08/14 Page 23 of 23