Hall v. Cool

Full title: RICARDO ALEXANDER HALL, Plaintiff, v. GARY COOL, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATHENS DIVISION

Date published: Sep 24, 2012

Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-99(CAR) (M.D. Ga. Sep. 24, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-99(CAR)

09-24-2012

RICARDO ALEXANDER HALL, Plaintiff, v. GARY COOL, Defendant.

C. ASHLEY ROYAL

PROCEEDINGS UNDER

42 U.S.C. § 1983

ORDER ON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATIONS

Before the Court are two Recommendations from the United States Magistrate Judge: a Recommendation [Doc. 24] to deny Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and a subsequent Recommendation [Doc. 30] to grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss this case for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. Having considered the objections and investigated each matter de novo, this Court agrees with the findings and conclusions of the United States Magistrate Judge that genuine issues of material fact exist as to Plaintiff's excessive force claim. Thus, the Recommendation [Doc. 24] to deny Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is HEREBY ADOPTED AND MADE THE ORDER OF THE COURT. However, because Plaintiff has recently updated his address with this Court, the Court finds dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute to be inappropriate.¹ Thus, the Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the Recommendation [Doc. 30] to dismiss this action.

1 The Court notes that at the time the Magistrate Judge issued his Recommendation, Plaintiff had failed to keep this Court informed of his current address. Plaintiff did not update his address until after the Magistrate Judge submitted his Recommendation to dismiss for failure to prosecute.

Despite Defendant's arguments to the contrary, this Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding Plaintiff's excessive force claim. For the reasons thoroughly set forth by the Magistrate Judge in the Recommendation, the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that Defendant acted sadistically and maliciously to cause Plaintiff harm.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Recommendation [Doc. 24] to deny Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is HEREBY ADOPTED AND MADE THE ORDER OF THE COURT, and the Recommendation [Doc. 30] to dismiss this action is hereby REJECTED. Thus, Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment [Doc. 18] and Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 26] are hereby denied.

____________

C. ASHLEY ROYAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SSH