Reason v. McDermott et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
JAMIE ANTHONY REASON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES J. CASALI, PATRICK MALONEY,
WILLIAM JUNKINS,
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Civil Action No. 24-cv-10044-ADB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BURROUGHS, D.J.
Jamie Anthony Reason (“Plaintiff”) brings this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that
corrections officers working for the Norfolk County Sheriff’s Office, including James J. Casali,
Patrick Maloney, and William Junkins (“Defendants”), violated his civil rights when they broke
up a physical altercation between him and another prisoner. See generally [ECF No. 1]. Before
the Court is Defendants’ unopposed motion for summary judgment. [ECF No. 47]. For the
following reasons, that motion is GRANTED.
Case 1:24-cv-10044-ADB Document 53 Filed 12/11/25 Page 1 of 3

2
The Court draws the following facts from Defendants’ Rule 56.1 statement of facts, [ECF
No. 49], which Plaintiff is deemed to have admitted, L.R. 56.1 (“Material facts of record set forth
in the statement required to be served by the moving party will be deemed for purposes of the
motion to be admitted by opposing parties unless controverted by the statement required to be
served by opposing parties.”), as well as the documents referenced therein.
On July 2, 2022, Plaintiff had a physical altercation with another prisoner in the H4B
Unit of the Norfolk County Sheriff’s Office Correctional Facility. [ECF No. 49 ¶ 1]. Casali sent
out a code blue alert over the radio, indicating that two prisoners were fighting. [Id. ¶ 2]. He
also ordered them several times to stop fighting, and, when the prisoners ignored those orders, he
ordered the lockdown of the unit and began securing the doors. [Id. ¶¶ 3–4]. Casali did not
break up the fight or put Plaintiff in restraints. [Id. ¶ 5]. Junkins responded to the code blue
alert, but he also did not break up the fight or put Plaintiff in restraints. [Id. ¶¶ 6–7]. Junkins
did, however, help escort Plaintiff to the medical unit and then to the hospital. [Id. ¶ 8].
Maloney, who was not at the prison at the time of the physical altercation and did not respond to
the code blue alert, helped transport Plaintiff to the hospital with Junkins. [Id. ¶¶ 9–11]. At the
hospital, Plaintiff was diagnosed with a right midshaft forearm fracture. [Id. ¶ 12].
Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit against Defendants and others on
January 4, 2024, asserting excessive-force and supervisory-liability claims under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. [ECF No. 1]. On November 20, 2024, the Court granted a partial motion to dismiss the
supervisory-liability claim, leaving only Plaintiff’s excessive-force claim against Defendants.
[ECF No. 21]. On October 1, 2025, Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment, [ECF
No. 47], to which Plaintiff did not timely respond, see L.R. 56.1 (“Oppositions to motions for
summary judgment must be filed, unless the court orders otherwise, within 21 days after the
Case 1:24-cv-10044-ADB Document 53 Filed 12/11/25 Page 2 of 3

3
motion is served.”). On October 31, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an opposition to the
motion by November 7, 2025, or to show cause by that date why Defendants’ motion should not
be granted, [ECF No. 51]. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion or otherwise responded to the
Court’s order.
Summary judgment is appropriate where “the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(a). “[A] court confronted with an unopposed summary judgment motion is still
required ‘to test the undisputed facts in the crucible of the applicable law in order to ascertain
whether [summary] judgment is warranted.’” Rivera-Aponte v. Gomez Bus Line, Inc., 62 F.4th
1, 8 (1st Cir. 2023) (quoting Vélez v. Awning Windows, Inc., 375 F.3d 35, 42 (1st Cir. 2004)).
Here, Plaintiff’s excessive-force claim is based on the allegation that Defendants “used
excessive force when breaking up the fight by yanking and pulling his arm until it broke.” [ECF
No. 1 at 5]. Based on the undisputed facts in the summary-judgment record, however,
Defendants were not involved in breaking up the fight between Plaintiff and the other prisoner.
[ECF No. 49 ¶¶ 5, 7, 9–10]. “It is axiomatic that the liability of persons sued in their individual
capacities under section 1983 must be gauged in terms of their own actions.” Rogan v. Menino,
175 F.3d 75, 77 (1st Cir. 1999). Because there is no evidence in the record that Defendants were
personally involved in breaking up the physical altercation in which Plaintiff alleges he was
injured, Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, Defendants’
motion for summary judgment, [ECF No. 47], is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
December 11, 2025 	/s/ Allison D. Burroughs
ALLISON D. BURROUGHS
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-10044-ADB Document 53 Filed 12/11/25 Page 3 of 3