Poe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

JOSEPH SYLVESTER POE, III, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 5:23-cv-637-AMM-GMB

)

JOHN HAMM, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Joseph Sylvester Poe, III, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

alleging violations of his rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Doc. 21. The magistrate judge directed defendants Sergeant Jessie White and Officer

Robert Glover to file a special report responding to Mr. Poe’s allegations. Doc. 33.

Sergeant White and Officer Glover submitted a special report, Doc. 38, and Mr. Poe

filed a response, Doc. 40. The court construed the special report as a motion for

summary judgment. Doc. 39. On December 3, 2025, the magistrate judge entered a

report recommending that the court grant the motion. Doc. 41. Mr. Poe filed

objections to the report and recommendation on January 2, 2026. Doc. 42.

In his objections, Mr. Poe argues that the magistrate judge “should have

requested Limestone Correctional Facility’s Policy and Procedures on handling

Protective Custody [] inmates which would of [sic] showed how both Sgt. White and

Officer Glover neglected to follow procedures.” Doc. 42 at 1. But as the magistrate

judge correctly noted, “deliberate indifference describes a state of mind more

blameworthy than negligence,” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994), and

a “[m]erely negligent failure to protect an inmate from attack does not justify liability

under [§] 1983,” Goodman v. Kimbrough, 718 F.3d 1325, 1332 (11th Cir. 2013)

(quoting Brown v. Hughes, 894 F.2d 1533, 1537 (11th Cir. 1990)). Therefore, even

if the magistrate judge had requested Limestone’s policies on handling protective

custody inmates, and the policy showed that the defendants “neglected to follow

procedure,” this lapse would not be sufficient to establish a violation under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Therefore, Mr. Poe’s objection is OVERRULED.

Mr. Poe also objects on the basis that “Officer Glover was also aware Poe had

a previous situation with [inmate] Fitt’s [sic] a couple of days ago, before this

altercation took place . . . [and thus] was aware of the possibility of another

altercation and did nothing about it.” Doc. 42 at 1. This is the first time that Mr. Poe

contends that he had a “previous situation” with Fitts a few days before the incident

and that Officer Glover was aware of it. Doc. 42 at 1. In fact, the magistrate judge

found that Mr. Poe did not present evidence any evidence that Officer Glover knew

that Mr. Poe faced a substantial risk of serious harm from Fitts. Doc. 41 at 11. Here

again, although Mr. Poe raises the objection, he does not provide any support for his

claim that Officer Glover was aware of a “previous situation” with Fitts.

Accordingly, Mr. Poe’s objection is OVERRULED.

Finally, Mr. Poe objects on grounds that “Sgt. Jason McDowell from I & I,

who investigated this incident advised Poe, after viewing the video and reading the

statement’s [sic] of all parties stated the incident appeared to be a cover-up by the

Facility and he was turning this incident over to the State (6-29-22).” Doc. 42 at 1.

Like his previous objection, this is the first time Mr. Poe asserts that Sergeant

McDowell investigated the incident, told Poe that “the incident appeared to be a

cover-up,” and referred the incident to the State. Doc. 42 at 1. Previously, the

defendants provided the Investigative Report from the Law Enforcement Services

Division, signed by Agent Steven Benson. Doc. 38-4. The report reflects that Agent

Benson conducted the investigation, interviewed Mr. Poe, read Fitts his Miranda

rights, and forwarded the case to the Limestone County District Attorney’s Office

for prosecution against Fitts. Doc. 38-4 at 2. Agent Benson noted that “no facility

video surveillance footage could be acquired because of the location of the incident.”

Doc. 38-4 at 2. Mr. Poe has not provided any evidence to substantiate his assertion

about Sergeant McDowell’s investigation and findings and to counter the

Investigative Report from Agent Benson. Accordingly, Mr. Poe’s objection is

OVERRULED.

After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s

report and objections, the court ADOPTS the report and ACCEPTS the

recommendation. Consistent with that recommendation, the court finds that the

defendants’ motion for summary judgment is due to be GRANTED. A final

judgment will be entered.

DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of January, 2026.

ANNA M. hans.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE