IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

LARRY COTTON, #135533, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACT. NO. 2:20-cv-642-ECM ) [WO] REOSHA BUTLER, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER

On August 18, 2023, the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation that the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (docs. 30, 42) be granted on all of the Plaintiff’s claims in this

action. (Doc. 55). The Plaintiff filed objections to the Recommendation. (Doc. 58). After carefully reviewing the record in this case, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and the Plaintiff’s objections, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff’s objections are due to be overruled, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is due to be adopted, and this case is due to be dismissed. When a party objects to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the district court must review the disputed portions de novo.

(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz,

(1980). The district court “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”

(b)(1). De novo review requires that the district court independently consider factual issues based on the record. Jeffrey S. by Ernest S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of State of Ga.,

(11th Cir. 1990). However, objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation must be sufficiently specific in order to warrant de novo review. See LoConte v. Dugger,

(11th Cir. 1988) (“Whenever any party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a magistrate, the district court has an obligation to conduct a de novo review of the record with respect to that factual issue.”). Otherwise, a Report and Recommendation is reviewed for clear error. The Court has carefully reviewed the record in this case, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and the Plaintiff’s objections. To the extent the Plaintiff makes

conclusory objections, these objections are reviewed for clear error and are due to be overruled. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants in their official capacities be dismissed based on sovereign immunity and that the claims against the Defendants in their individual capacities be dismissed based on qualified

immunity. The Plaintiff argues that it would be error to grant summary judgment “on grounds of immunity” because the law is clear that public officials may be held liable for money damages when their actions are found to violate a constitutional right. (Doc. 58 at 3). This objection fails to establish that the Magistrate Judge erred in recommending dismissal based on sovereign immunity or qualified immunity. The Court agrees with the

Magistrate Judge that the claims against the Defendants in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity and that the claims against the Defendants in their individual

2 capacities are barred by qualified immunity. Accordingly, this objection is due to be overruled.

The Plaintiff also argues that granting summary judgment would violate his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial because he demanded a jury trial in his Amended Complaint. But whether the Plaintiff made a jury demand has no bearing on whether summary judgment is appropriate. Accordingly, this objection is due to be overruled. Additionally, the Plaintiff attempts to raise new claims regarding inmate-on-inmate and officer-on-inmate violence, gang activity, overcrowding, and understaffing at

Ventress. However, “plaintiffs may not ‘raise new claims at the summary judgment stage.’” White v. Beltram Edge Tool Supply, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). Accordingly, this objection is due to be overruled. Accordingly, upon an independent review of the record, and for good cause, it is ORDERED as follows that:

1. The Plaintiff’s Objections (doc. 58) are OVERRULED; 2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 55) is ADOPTED; 3. The Defendants’ Answers and Special Reports (docs. 30, 42) are construed as motions for summary judgment, and the motions for summary judgment (docs. 30, 42) are GRANTED;

4. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A separate Final Judgment will enter.

3 DONE this 22nd day of September, 2023.

/s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4