Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Anderson v. Morris

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division

September 27, 2017

LEVONZEL ANDERSON PLAINTIFF
v.
NORRIS MORRIS, et al. DEFENDANTS

          ORDER

          DEBRA M. BROWN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden, Doc. #81, recommending that Levonzel Anderson's motion for preliminary injunction, Doc. #32, be denied. For the reasons below, the Report and Recommendation will be adopted as the order of the Court.

         I

         Relevant Procedural History

         On or about May 20, 2016, Levonzel Anderson filed a complaint in this Court against numerous employees of the Mississippi State Penitentiary and the Mississippi Parole Board. Doc. #1. The complaint alleges that the prison and Parole Board employees are conspiring to keep Anderson in prison. Id. at 8.

         On or about November 4, 2016, Anderson filed a “Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint” seeking to add, in relevant part, additional allegations involving incidents of rape that occurred while he was sleeping. Doc. #32. United States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden treated the motion as a motion for preliminary injunction seeking protection from the alleged incidents of rape, see Doc. #88, and set a hearing on the motion for December 9, 2016, Doc. #38.

         On December 9, 2016, Judge Virden held the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction. Doc. #47. Following the hearing, on April 28, 2017, Judge Virden issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the motion be denied because Anderson failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Doc. #81 at 2-3. On or about June 2, 2017, Anderson filed a document captioned, “Plaintiffs Objections to United States Magistrate Judge Report and Recommendations on Preliminary Injunction.” Doc. #88.

         II

         Standard of Review

         Where 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.” 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 citation omitted). However, “frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).

         III

         Relevant Background Information

         As established in the Report and Recommendation and during the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction, Anderson alleges that he has been sexually assaulted multiple times while he was sleeping and under the influence of psychotropic medication. He alleges that the assaults did not wake him from his sleep but that he “felt funny” upon awakening, as if someone had “tampered with his butt.” However, the Prison Rape Elimination Act[1] (“PREA”) coordinator has investigated Anderson's allegations of sexual assault many times but has never found any evidence to support his claim that the sexual assaults took place. See Doc. #57-1.

         Anderson, who suffers from severe mental health issues, conceded that the assaults could be a product of his imagination. He has been housed in many different locations, and has reported nocturnal assaults in nearly all of those places. He even reported that he was assaulted multiple times while housed alone in a cell at the Unit 42 hospital at the Mississippi State Penitentiary.[2] The defendants represent that the video footage of Anderson's cell for specific ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.