Filed: Aug. 07, 2012
Latest Update: Aug. 07, 2012
Summary: ORDER M. CASEY RODGERS, Chief District Judge. This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation dated February 22, 2012. (Doc. 75). The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of any timely filed objections. Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objec
Summary: ORDER M. CASEY RODGERS, Chief District Judge. This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation dated February 22, 2012. (Doc. 75). The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of any timely filed objections. Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any object..
More
ORDER
M. CASEY RODGERS, Chief District Judge.
This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation dated February 22, 2012. (Doc. 75). The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of any timely filed objections.
Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:
1. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.
2. Defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 70) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
3. Plaintiff's due process claims are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.
4. The claims against Defendant Edouard and Baldridge are DISMISSED for failure to properly exhaust administrative remedies.
5. Defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 70) is DENIED with regard to Plaintiff's First and Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Young and Bozeman in their individual capacities only and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings.
