IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRITNEY R. THOMAS, AIS # 237646, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 15-00291-KD-C

LIEUTENANT DEMINGS, 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 Officer Hill, the undersigned now recommends 

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

favor of Defendant Officer Hill. 

Plaintiff Thomas brought this § 1983 action against Lieutenant Demmings, 

Sergeant Hayes, Officer Clark, Detective Golston, and Officer Hill with claims of 

“police brutality and assault.” (Doc. 1 at 8). With the exception of Defendant 

Officer Hill, all defendants were served with the suit and answered the same. 

(Docs. 18-20, 22-23). The court converted the defendants’ answers and special 

reports into a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 24), and on May 2, 2016, the 

undersigned entered a report and recommendation, inter alia, that summary 

Case 1:15-cv-00291-KD-C Document 35 Filed 10/18/16 Page 1 of 3
2

judgment be granted in favor of defendants. (Doc. 29). 

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, Officer Hill, on all claims raised. The court 

explained in its report that Plaintiff Thomas presented no additional allegations 

or differing facts as to his claims against Defendant Officer Hill as those against 

the defendants granted summary judgment. (Doc. 29 at 18). Thus, the court 

maintained its analysis of the allegations against Defendant Officer Hill would be 

identical to those of the defendants to whom summary judgment was granted. 

Plaintiff Thomas was notified of the court’s intention to recommend summary 

judgment in favor of Defendant Officer Hill, 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 Officer Hill, and a final 

judgment be entered in this case without trial. (Id. at 19). 

The District Judge adopted the report and recommendation on June 15, 

2016 (Doc. 32), and to date, Plaintiff Thomas has made no objections to the report 

and recommendation, including the notification to enter summary judgment in 

favor of Defendant Officer Hill. 

Therefore, with no objections having been made to the May 2, 2016 report 

and recommendation, the undersigned hereby incorporates by reference and 

adopts the analysis of the previous report and recommendation (Doc. 29) and 

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

summary judgment be entered in favor of Defendant Officer Hill and that 

Plaintiff Thomas’ complaint be dismissed in its entirety. 

Case 1:15-cv-00291-KD-C Document 35 Filed 10/18/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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(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-00291-KD-C Document 35 Filed 10/18/16 Page 3 of 3