Pilot v. Edwards ( 2019 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS JEREMIAH PIER PILOT, § § Plaintiff, § § versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-CV-191 § STEVEN EDWARDS, et al., § § Defendants. § MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Jeremiah Pier Pilot, an inmate confined at the Michael Unit, proceeding pro se, brought this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Steven Edwards and Kimpton Lewis. The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The Magistrate Judge recommends granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment to the extent it seeks dismissal of the claims against the defendants in their official capacities. The Magistrate Judge also recommends denying the motion for summary judgment in all other respects. The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings and all available evidence. The defendants filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. This requires a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the court concludes the defendants’ objections are without merit. The defendants contend that because plaintiff did not respond to their motion for summary judgment, the court is required to accept the facts as stated in their motion as undisputed. However, the defendants fail to recognize that the plaintiff’s version of events is drawn from his complaint which includes a declaration signed “under penalty of perjury [that] all facts presented [therein] are true and correct.” Therefore, in considering the motion for summary judgment, the Magistrate Judge properly credited the complaint as competent summary judgment evidence. See Leggett v. Lafayette, 608 F. App’x 187, 190 (Sth Cir. 2015) (citing Jon v. Chevron USA, Inc., 731 379, 382 n.2 (Sth Cir. 2013); Missho-Iwai Am. Corp. v. Kline, 845 F.2d 1300, 1306-07 (Sth Cri. 1988). Here, genuine disputes of material fact exist regarding whether the force employed by the defendants was used in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm. Such genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment. Therefore, the court overrules defendants’ objections. ORDER Accordingly, the defendants’ objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the report of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. It is ORDERED that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, in part, and plaintiffs claims against them in their official capacities are DISMISSED. It is further ORDERED that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED in all other respects. SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 18th day of September, 2019. PNuua be Ore. MARCIA A.CRONE- UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE