Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

CASSADY v. WALKER, CV 109-128. (2012)

Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia Number: infdco20120316a76 Visitors: 3
Filed: Mar. 15, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 15, 2012
Summary: ORDER J. RANDAL HALL, District Judge. After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which objections have been filed (doc. no. 48). Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. Therefore, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (Doc. no. 35.) In particular, their motion is granted as to Plaintiffs claims against
More

ORDER

J. RANDAL HALL, District Judge.

After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which objections have been filed (doc. no. 48). Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. Therefore, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (Doc. no. 35.) In particular, their motion is granted as to Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Garnett and Scott, and it is denied as to the claims against Defendants Walker, Wilkes, and Evans. Accordingly, the case shall proceed to trial only on Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Walker, Wilkes, and Evans for acting with deliberate indifference in exposing him to levels of environmental tobacco smoke that posed an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his future health.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer