Sanders v. Williams, 3:17cv803-TKW-MJF. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
Number: infdco20191030f96
Visitors: 14
Filed: Oct. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 25, 2019
Summary: ORDER T. KENT WETHERELL, II , District Judge . This case is before the Court based upon the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 73). No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, I agree with the magistrate judge's determination that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Williams and Crawford should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. I also agree that Plaintiff's claims again
Summary: ORDER T. KENT WETHERELL, II , District Judge . This case is before the Court based upon the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 73). No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, I agree with the magistrate judge's determination that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Williams and Crawford should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. I also agree that Plaintiff's claims agains..
More
ORDER
T. KENT WETHERELL, II, District Judge.
This case is before the Court based upon the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 73). No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, I agree with the magistrate judge's determination that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Williams and Crawford should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. I also agree that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Johns should be dismissed for failure to state a claim based on Plaintiff's concession that the motion to dismiss is "well taken" as to Johns since "there is no allegation of serious physical injury or harm to [Plaintiff] which resulted from th[e] action of Johns," Doc. 70, at 6;1 however, based on Plaintiff's concessions (and the fact that Plaintiff was on his sixth amended complaint), the Court finds that the claims against Johns should be dismissed with prejudice, not without prejudice as recommended by the magistrate judge.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.
2. Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 67) is GRANTED, and the claims against Defendants Williams, Crawford, and Johns in the sixth amended complaint (Doc. 53) are DISMISSED with prejudice.
3. The Clerk shall close the case file.
DONE and ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. This filing also states that "Plaintiff is filing a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice as to Sergeant Johns," but the notice was never filed. The Court is not inclined to treat this statement as a voluntary dismissal of the claims against Defendant Johns because (1) the statement indicates that a separate notice will be filed, and (2) Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) contemplates a stand-alone filing.
Source: Leagle
