BROCKINGTON v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 5:14-CV-163 (MTT). (2015)
Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20150211b40
Visitors: 7
Filed: Feb. 10, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 10, 2015
Summary: ORDER MARC T. TREADWELL, District Judge. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle (Doc. 26) on the Defendants' motions to dismiss (Docs. 11; 23). The Magistrate Judge recommends granting the motions because the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies in accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). The Plaintiff did not file an objection to the Recommendation. The Court has reviewed the Recommen
Summary: ORDER MARC T. TREADWELL, District Judge. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle (Doc. 26) on the Defendants' motions to dismiss (Docs. 11; 23). The Magistrate Judge recommends granting the motions because the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies in accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). The Plaintiff did not file an objection to the Recommendation. The Court has reviewed the Recommend..
More
ORDER
MARC T. TREADWELL, District Judge.
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle (Doc. 26) on the Defendants' motions to dismiss (Docs. 11; 23). The Magistrate Judge recommends granting the motions because the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies in accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The Plaintiff did not file an objection to the Recommendation.
The Court has reviewed the Recommendation and accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.1 The Recommendation is ADOPTED and made the order of this Court. Accordingly, the Defendants' motions to dismiss (Docs. 11; 23) are GRANTED, and the Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. In addition, the Court finds that the October 1, 2013 grievance does not address the issues in the Plaintiff's lawsuit; rather, it requests the dismissal of a disciplinary report and the grievance was rejected for that reason. For this additional reason, the Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies by filing the October 1, 2013 grievance, nor did he do so by filing the March 11, 2014 grievance, which was both untimely and not appealed.
Source: Leagle
