Filed: Mar. 03, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2016
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , Chief District Judge . Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 January 28, 2016, the magistrate judge filed Findings and Recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , Chief District Judge . Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 January 28, 2016, the magistrate judge filed Findings and Recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were ..
More
ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 January 28, 2016, the magistrate judge filed Findings and Recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 45. Neither party filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations.
The Court has reviewed the file and finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations filed January 28, 2016 (ECF No. 45) are ADOPTED IN FULL.
2. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 33) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, the Motion is GRANTED to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief, but DENIED to the extent it seeks dismissal of this action on principles of res judicata.
3. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's pursuit of damages premised on his First and Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant Davis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
