Fletcher

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HORAYSHIO FLETCHER,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 2:25-cv-264-CLM-GMB

LT. VINCENT BROWN, et al.,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Horayshio Fletcher has filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 alleging that Defendants Lieutenant Vincent Brown and Officer

Richardson violated his rights under the Constitution or laws of the United

States. (Doc. 1). The magistrate judge has entered a report recommending that

the court treat Defendants’ special report as a motion for summary judgment

and grant the motion on Fletcher’s claims for injunctive relief and deliberate

indifference to medical needs. (Doc. 48). The magistrate judge recommends

that the court deny summary judgment on Fletcher’s claims for (1) excessive

force against Lieutenant Brown after Fletcher left his cell in the A-Dorm; (2)

excessive force against Lieutenant Brown while Fletcher was handcuffed; and

(3) excessive force against Officer Richardson while Fletcher was handcuffed.

(See id.).

Fletcher has filed two separate objections to the report and

recommendation. (Docs. 50, 52). First, Fletcher objects to the magistrate

judge’s statement in the report that “[Fletcher] maintains that [h]e did not

refuse Brown’s commands.” (Doc. 50, p. 1; see also Doc. 48, p. 9). According to

Fletcher, Lieutenant Brown “didn’t give any commands . . . he just said he’s

gone ‘beat my ass’ and struck me (x5) [t]imes in the face.” (Doc. 50, p. 1). The

magistrate judge correctly summarized the evidence in a light most favorable

to Fletcher, stating that Lieutenant Brown “pulled Fletcher out of the dorm,”

“told Fletcher he was about to ‘beat [his] ass[,]” and punched Fletcher “in the

face five times.” (Doc. 48, p. 4). Thus, Fletcher has shown no error, and the

court OVERRULES this objection.1

Fletcher next objects to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the

court grant summary judgment on his deliberate indifference to serious

medical needs claim. (Doc. 51, p. 1). In support of this claim, Fletcher argues

that when he “got transferred to Donaldson back in March 2024,” he “told a

[n]urse about my pain and how it happen[ed] to me at pill call. But for whatever

reason she did not give [Fletcher] a sick call.” (Id.).

The magistrate judge correctly explained that to satisfy the first prong

of a deliberate indifference to medical needs claim, Fletcher must show a

“serious medical need” that creates a “substantial risk of harm.” (See Doc. 48,

pp. 11–12 (citing Hinson v. Bias, 927 F.3d 1103, 1122 (11th Cir. 2019)). While

Fletcher blames the nurse at Donaldson for not giving him a sick call, Fletcher

has not shown that he sought treatment beyond this single conversation with

the nurse or that his injuries were otherwise sufficiently serious to state a

deliberate indifference to medical needs claim. As the magistrate judge

correctly pointed out, a serious medical need is an injury “diagnosed by a

physician as requiring treatment or one that is so obvious that a lay person

would recognize the need for medical treatment,” Burnette v. Taylor, 533 F.3d

1325, 1330 (11th Cir. 2008), or an injury or condition that without treatment

created a “substantial risk of serious harm,” Hinson, 927 F.3d at 1122. And

nothing in the record establishes that Fletcher “had a serious need that

required medical attention.” See id. So the court OVERRULES Fletcher’s

objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the court grant

Lieutenant Brown and Officer Richardson summary judgment on Fletcher’s

deliberate indifference to medical needs claim.

1 In his second set of objections, Fletcher also objects to Defendants’ failure to produce a video

of what happened in B-dorm, arguing Defendants “don’t want [the video] to come out” because

it shows that “they did attack me.” (Doc. 52, p. 1). As the magistrate judge explained,

Alabama Department of Corrections officials maintain that “no video surveillance records

were found regarding the incident that took place on March 11, 2024.” (Doc. 48, p. 1 n.1 (citing

Docs 25-1 and 25-2)). So the magistrate judge correctly determined that the parties dispute

whether this video exists, and that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

Fletcher, any video would show that Defendants unlawfully attacked Fletcher in violation of

his constitutional rights.

Having considered the record and Fletcher’s objections, the court

ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report and ACCEPTS his recommendation.

Consistent with that recommendation, the court GRANTS IN PART and

DENIES IN PART Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 40). The

court WILL ENTER SUMMARY JUDGMENT for Lieutenant Brown and

Officer Richardson on Fletcher’s claim for deliberate indifference to medical

needs.

The court DENIES Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on

Fletcher’s claims of excessive force against Lieutenant Brown after Fletcher

left his cell in the A-Dorm; excessive force against Lieutenant Brown while

Fletcher was handcuffed; and excessive force against Officer Richardson while

Fletcher was handcuffed.

The court DENIES Fletcher’s motions for writ of mandamus (docs. 42 &

45) and motions for deposition (docs. 48 & 46) with leave to refile. The court

also DENIES Fletcher’s motion for appointment of counsel (doc. 51) with leave

to refile. See Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999) (“A plaintiff

in a civil case has no constitutional right to counsel.” And a district court

“should appoint counsel only in exceptional circumstances.”).

The court REFERS this case to the magistrate judge for further

proceedings on Fletcher’s excessive force claims.

The court will enter a separate partial judgment on Fletcher’s deliberate

indifference to medical needs claims.

The court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to send a copy of this

memorandum opinion and order to Fletcher at his address of record.

DONE and ORDERED on September 8, 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE