WILLIAMS v. PATILLO, 7:10-CV-142 (HL). (2012)
Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20120120a03
Visitors: 18
Filed: Jan. 19, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 19, 2012
Summary: ORDER HUGH LAWSON, Senior District Judge. The Recommendation (Doc. 28) of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff, entered December 13, 2011, is before the Court. The Magistrate Judge makes two recommendations. First, he recommends that Defendant Roberts' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) be granted. Second, he recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default (Doc. 17) be denied and Defendant Patillo be dismissed as a party. Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the recommendati
Summary: ORDER HUGH LAWSON, Senior District Judge. The Recommendation (Doc. 28) of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff, entered December 13, 2011, is before the Court. The Magistrate Judge makes two recommendations. First, he recommends that Defendant Roberts' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) be granted. Second, he recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default (Doc. 17) be denied and Defendant Patillo be dismissed as a party. Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the recommendatio..
More
ORDER
HUGH LAWSON, Senior District Judge.
The Recommendation (Doc. 28) of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff, entered December 13, 2011, is before the Court. The Magistrate Judge makes two recommendations. First, he recommends that Defendant Roberts' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) be granted. Second, he recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default (Doc. 17) be denied and Defendant Patillo be dismissed as a party.
Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the recommendation to deny the Motion for Entry of Default and dismiss Defendant Patillo. The Court has reviewed the Recommendation and finds no clear error in the Magistrate Judge's decision on that motion.
Plaintiff has filed an objection to the recommendation to grant the Motion to Dismiss. The Court has made a de novo review of that portion of the Recommendation. After careful consideration, the Court agrees with Judge Langstaff that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and the Motion to Dismiss should be granted.
Accordingly, the Court accepts and adopts the Recommendation (Doc. 28) in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default (Doc. 17) is denied. Defendant Patillo is dismissed from the case. Defendant Roberts' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
