United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division
LENROY GUILTY, JR. PLAINTIFF
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DAVIES, DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
M. BROWN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Guilty, Jr.-an inmate in the custody of the Mississippi
Department of Corrections (“MDOC”)-filed this
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of
the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and
unusual punishment. Doc. #1. Before the Court are the Report
and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge
S. Allan Alexander on August 5, 2016, Doc. #11; and the
motion for summary judgment filed September 19, 2016, by
Correctional Officers Clark, Honeycup, and Paige, Doc. #16.
about February 28, 2016, Lenroy Guilty, Jr., acting pro se,
filed a complaint in this Court against seven correctional
officers: (1) Correctional Officer Davies; (2) Correctional
Officer Clark; (3) Correctional Officer Griffin; (4)
Correctional Officer Harris; (5) Correctional Officer
Harrison; (6) Correctional Officer Honeycup; and (7)
Correctional Officer Paige. Doc. #1. The complaint alleges
that the various officers used excessive force in subduing
Guilty during a November 26, 2015, contraband investigation
of Guilty's cell. Id.
April 26, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge S. Allen
Alexander issued an order setting a
Spears hearing for June 14, 2016. Doc. #7. Of
relevance here, the order warned Guilty “that failure
to keep the court informed of his current address may result
in the dismissal of this lawsuit.”Id. at 2.
the Spears hearing, Judge Alexander issued a Report
and Recommendation, recommending Guilty's claims against
Davies and Griffin be dismissed because Guilty conceded they
did not take part in the alleged assault. Doc. #11 at 4.
However, Judge Alexander recommended that the case proceed
against Clark, Harris, Harrison, Honeycup, and Paige.
Id. Guilty acknowledged receipt of the Report and
Recommendation on August 16, 2016. Doc. #13. On September 19,
2016, Paige, Clark, and Honeycup (“Moving
Defendants”) filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc.
October 3, 2016, this case was reassigned from Judge
Alexander to United States Magistrate Judge Roy Percy. A
notice of reassignment was mailed to Guilty at the address
listed on the docket but was later returned as undeliverable.
January 5, 2017, Judge Percy issued an order setting an
evidentiary hearing in this matter for June 13, 2017. Doc.
#19. The same day, Judge Percy extended the deadline for
Guilty to respond to the motion for summary judgment until
January 26, 2017. Doc. #20. Both orders were mailed to Guilty
at his address listed on the docket. On February 27, 2017,
the order extending the deadline for Guilty to respond to the
motion for summary judgment was returned as undeliverable.
objections to a report and recommendation have been filed, a
court must conduct a “de novo review of those portions
of the ... report and recommendation to which the Defendants
specifically raised objections. With respect to those
portions of the report and recommendation to which no
objections were raised, the Court need only satisfy itself
that there is no plain error on the face of the
record.” Gauthier v. Union Pac. R.R.
Co., 644 F.Supp.2d 824, 828 (E.D. Tex. 2009) (citing
Douglass v. United Serv. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d
1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996)) (internal citations omitted).
than fourteen days have passed since the issuance of the
Report and Recommendation, and no party has filed
objections. Accordingly, this Court's review of
the Report and Recommendation is limited to plain error.
Morales v. Mosley, No. 3:13-cv-848, 2014 WL 5410326,
at *2 (S.D.Miss. Oct. 22, 2014) (citing Shelby v. City of
El Paso, 577 F. App'x 327, 331 (5th Cir. 2014)).
After reviewing the Report and Recommendation and finding no
plain error with respect to its findings on the ...