Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00252/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00252-3/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JONATHAN BISHOP, AIS # 272754, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 15-0252-WS-C

REGINA BOLAR, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was referred to the 

undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72(a)(2)(R), and 

is now before the court following the undersigned’s notification of intent to 

recommend summary judgment for the remaining, unserved, defendant 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f)(3). After a thorough review of the record and 

having no objections filed to the court’s Notice to Recommend Summary 

Judgment in favor of Defendant Earl Daily, the undersigned now recommends to 

the presiding District Judge that summary judgment be granted, sua sponte, in 

favor of Defendant Earl Daily. 

Plaintiff filed this action against Regina Bolar, William Gillis, Kelly Smith, 

Brian Ezell, and Earl Daily with various claims of failure to protect him. (Doc. 

13). With the exception of Earl Daily, all defendants were served with the suit 

and answered the same. (Docs. 26, 27). The court converted the defendants’ 

answers and special reports into a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 28), and 

on April 6, 2016, the undersigned entered a report and recommendation that

summary judgment be granted in favor of defendants. (Doc. 37). 

Case 1:15-cv-00252-WS-C Document 42 Filed 10/18/16 Page 1 of 3
The report also notified Plaintiff, pursuant to Rule 56(f)(3) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, of the court’s intent to recommend summary judgment in 

favor of the unserved defendant, Earl Daily, on all claims raised. The court 

explained in its report that Plaintiff Bishop presented no additional allegations or

differing facts as to his claims against Defendant Daily as those against 

Defendant Ezell, who was granted summary judgment. (Doc. 37 at 20-27). Thus, 

the court maintained that its analysis of the allegations against Defendant Earl 

Daily would be identical to that of Defendant Ezell, to whom summary judgment 

was granted. Plaintiff Bishop was notified of the court’s intention to recommend 

summary judgment in favor of Defendant Earl Daily, and its reasoning for so 

doing. Plaintiff was instructed that he had fourteen days to object to the report 

and recommendation or the undersigned would recommend to the District Judge 

that summary judgment be granted in favor of Defendant Earl Daily, and a final 

judgment be entered in this case without trial. (Id. at 25-27). 

The District Judge adopted the report and recommendation on May 20 

2016 (Doc. 39), and to date, Plaintiff Bishop has made no objections to the report 

and recommendation, including the notification to enter summary judgment in 

favor of Defendant Earl Daily. 

Therefore, with no objections having been made to the April 6, 2016 report 

and recommendation, the undersigned hereby incorporates by reference and 

adopts the analysis of the previous report and recommendation (Doc. 37) and 

recommends that pursuant to Rule 56(f)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

summary judgment be entered in favor of Defendant Earl Daily and that Plaintiff 

Bishop’s complaint be dismissed in its entirety. 

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS 

Case 1:15-cv-00252-WS-C Document 42 Filed 10/18/16 Page 2 of 3
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(c). The parties should 

note that under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a 

magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and 

recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)

waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on 

unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time 

period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the 

absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain 

error if necessary in the interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. In order to be 

specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to 

which objection is made, state the 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 18th day of October, 2016. 

______________________________

WILLIAM E. CASSADY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00252-WS-C Document 42 Filed 10/18/16 Page 3 of 3