United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Western Division
magistrate judge filed a report on September 2, 2016,
recommending that defendants' special report be treated
as a motion for summary judgment and further recommending
that the motion be granted. Plaintiff filed objections to the
report and recommendation on October 21, 2016.
objections, the court is asked to disregard the magistrate
judge's refusal to consider plaintiff's response to
defendants' motion for summary judgment on grounds that
“plaintiff did not sign [the response] under the
penalty of perjury.”Plaintiff explains his belief that Chief
United States Magistrate Judge John E. Ott “does not
like” him because Judge Ott presided over his federal
habeas corpus petition, and therefore knows the
nature of plaintiff's conviction and
sentence.Plaintiff also complains about his mental
illnesses and declares, “no matter the law, ” the
court will do what it “ha[s] to do” so as to
“not make the right person mad” or
“dislike” the court's
belief that Judge Ott or this court harbors improper bias is
baseless and frivolous, and plaintiff's mental health
issues are not material to the claims being adjudicated.
Additionally, plaintiff's beliefs and concerns do not
point to any legal or factual errors in the report and
report, the magistrate judge did refuse to consider all but
two sentencesof plaintiff's response (opposition) to
defendants' motion for summary judgment because plaintiff
did not sign the response under oath or penalty of perjury.
Plaintiff does not deny he was instructed how to properly
respond to a motion for summary judgment pursuant to
Griffith v. Wainwright, 772 F.2d 822, 825 (11th Cir.
1985), and he clearly understood Griffith compliance
because he attached two inmate affidavits to his response
that were subscribed to under oath or under penalty of
perjury. Plaintiff does not dispute the magistrate
judge's report that, excepting two sentences, his
response is not sworn under penalty of perjury,
does he contend that it was his belief the sentence
interjection(s) satisfied Rule 56 evidentiary requirements
for the entire response.
than the issue of his unsworn response, plaintiff does not
assert the magistrate judge made any factual or legal errors
in the report and recommendation.Instead, he declares
defendants “submitted false evidence” and
“affidavits” in their report. Specifically,
plaintiff asserts defendants attested that the medical
records contained “a treatment order for scabies from
April 28, 2014 through May 13, 2014[.]” However, when
the records are examined, they reveal the treatment plaintiff
received during this time period was for MRSA, a staph
infection. While plaintiff's description of the
medical records is accurate, it is equally true that the
magistrate judge came to the same conclusion because he did
not report that plaintiff received scabies treatment from
April 28, 2014, to May 13, 2014
carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the
materials in the court file, including the report and
recommendation and the objections thereto, the magistrate
judge's report is hereby ADOPTED and the
recommendation is ACCEPTED. Accordingly, the
court ORDERS that defendants' motion for
summary judgment is GRANTED, the court
finding no genuine issues of material fact exist. A final
judgment will be entered.
 Doc. no. 44.
 Doc. no. 47.
 Id. at 1 (alteration
 Doc. no. 47 at 1.
 Id. (alteration
 Doc. no. 44 at 1 n.1 (citing Doc. no.
42 at 3) (“Corizon, LLC does have a policy that
violates our rights, by having a LPN to see us, and tell us
that in 7-14 days we will see a doctor. (I swear under
penalty of perjury that I've never been ...