Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_16-cv-01626/USCOURTS-alnd-2_16-cv-01626-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOSEPH L. SHACK,

Plaintiff,

v.

LT. MUHAMAD JENKINS and 

OFFICER HAKEEM EDMUNDS,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action Number

2:16-cv-01626-AKK-TMP

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Joseph L. Shack filed this lawsuit alleging violations of his constitutional 

rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Docs. 1; 8. The magistrate judge filed a 

report on February 23, 2017, recommending the dismissal of this action without 

prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Doc. 11. 

The court advised the parties of their right to file specific written objections within 

fourteen days. Id. at 15. The court received Shack’s undated objections on March 

13, 2017. Doc. 12. Although it is unclear whether Shack timely submitted his 

objections through the prison mailing system, the court will address the objections 

below.

Shack first objects to the magistrate judge’s determination that he has not 

stated a valid constitutional claim based on his placement in segregation. Shack 

states that the only inmates who are “suppose [sic] to go to segregation upon 

FILED

 2017 Mar-15 PM 03:55

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:16-cv-01626-AKK-TMP Document 13 Filed 03/15/17 Page 1 of 3
2

arrival at Donaldson Correctional Fac. are death row inmates, close custody 

inmates, inmates transferring from a different fac. already in segregation, are in 

close custody, [or] have disciplinary segregation/lock up days pending.” Doc. 12 

at 1. Shack alleges that none of these conditions applied to him. Id. Even 

accepting as true that the prison staff acted inconsistently with the prison’s usual 

policies when they placed Shack in segregation, Shack still fails to state a claim for 

relief. See Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 467 (1983) (“[T]he transfer of an inmate 

to less amenable and more restrictive quarters for non-punitive reasons is well 

within the terms of confinement ordinarily contemplated by a prison sentence.”). 

Accordingly, Shack’s objection is OVERRULED.

Shack also objects to the dismissal of his excessive force and deliberate 

indifference claims. Specifically, Shack states that he was “beaten upon [his] 

arrival for no reason,” was “denied medical attention for so long,” and “didn’t see 

a Dr. about [his] ear for over 3 months.” Doc. 12 at 2. These objections do not 

address the magistrate judge’s observation that Shack’s complaint and amended 

complaint contain (without explanation) vastly different accounts of the hearing 

aid incident that occurred when Shack arrived at Donaldson. See doc. 11 at 7; 

compare doc. 1 at 3 with doc. 8 at 4, 11. The objections also fail to address the 

magistrate judge’s determination that Shack failed to allege that the substantial loss 

of hearing in one ear “cause[d] him pain, interfere[d] with his daily activities, or 

Case 2:16-cv-01626-AKK-TMP Document 13 Filed 03/15/17 Page 2 of 3
3

subject[ed] him to a substantial risk of harm,” see id. at 11, and that defendants 

were more than merely negligent in failing to address his need, see id. at 12. See 

Cottrell v. Caldwell, 85 F.3d 1480, 1491 (11th Cir. 1996) (“There is no liability for 

an official’s failure to alleviate a significant risk that he should have perceived but 

did not.”). Therefore, these objections are also OVERRULED.

Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the 

court file, including the Report and Recommendation and Shack’s objections, the 

court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s report is due to be ADOPTED, 

and the recommendation ACCEPTED. Consequently, this action is due to be 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The court will contemporaneously 

enter an order of final judgment in accordance with the foregoing.

DONE the 15th day of March, 2017.

 _________________________________

ABDUL K. KALLON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-01626-AKK-TMP Document 13 Filed 03/15/17 Page 3 of 3