Filed: May 19, 2016
Latest Update: May 19, 2016
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On April 27, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations wer
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On April 27, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were..
More
ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On April 27, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed April 27, 2016, are adopted in full;
2. Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) is granted in part and denied in part as follows:
• Granted as to Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Robert and Auld stemming from allegations of events prior to November 2014;
• Denied as to Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Robert and Auld stemming from allegations of events between November 2014 and January 2015; and
• Denied without prejudice as to Defendants' arguments that the second amended complaint should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies;
3. Within thirty days from the service of this order, Defendants may renew their exhaustion argument in a motion for summary judgment; and
4. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings.
