From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Keaton v. Martin

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Valdosta Division
Mar 16, 2006
Civil Action No. 7:04-cv-55(HL) (M.D. Ga. Mar. 16, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 7:04-cv-55(HL).

March 16, 2006


ORDER


The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Richard L. Hodge, entered February 16, 2006 [doc 59], in the above-captioned case is before the Court. The Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [doc 34] be denied and recommends that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [doc 47] be denied, in part, and granted, in part. Plaintiff and Defendant have filed written objections to the Recommendation, as permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court, having given careful consideration to the Recommendation and the objections thereto, hereby directs as follows.

The Recommendation is accepted insofar as it denies Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's Motion fails to show that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court has given de novo consideration to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, in view of Plaintiff's objections thereto, but finds no error.

The Recommendation is also accepted insofar as it grants, in part, and denies, in part, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge, and is not persuaded by Plaintiff's arguments to the contrary, that Plaintiff has failed to come forward with sufficient evidence from which a jury could find that Defendant's conduct was retaliatory. As to the retaliation claim, therefore, Defendant's Motion is granted. The Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff has suffered an injury, that being his inability to file a timely application for certificate of probable cause. As to this issue, therefore, Defendant's Motion is denied.

Finally, the Court accepts the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to the question of whether Defendant mailed the application at issue, but without comment as to the reasoning offered by the Magistrate Judge. The Court believes that it is appropriate for the Magistrate Judge to consider the additional evidence offered by Defendant in her Objections to the Recommendation and that this evidence might change the result presently before the Court. Therefore, the Court accepts the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of whether there has been a violation of Plaintiff's constitutional right of access to the courts. However, the Court grants Defendant permission to file another Motion for Summary Judgment, in which she may rely on the evidence previously presented, as well as such other evidence as she may deem appropriate.

In sum, the Court accepts the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, in part, and denied, in part. The Court grants Defendant leave to file a new Motion for Summary Judgment on the question of whether issues of material fact remain with respect to whether Defendant mailed Plaintiff's application. Defendant's new Motion may also raise the issue of qualified immunity since that issue was raised in the previous Motion but was not addressed by the Magistrate Judge in the Recommendation. Defendant's Motion must be filed not later than 30 days from the date of entry of this Order.

SO ORDERED,


Summaries of

Keaton v. Martin

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Valdosta Division
Mar 16, 2006
Civil Action No. 7:04-cv-55(HL) (M.D. Ga. Mar. 16, 2006)
Case details for

Keaton v. Martin

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH KEATON, Plaintiff, v. J. MARTIN, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Valdosta Division

Date published: Mar 16, 2006

Citations

Civil Action No. 7:04-cv-55(HL) (M.D. Ga. Mar. 16, 2006)