BROCKINGTON v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 5:14-CV-163 (MTT). (2014)
Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20140806892
Visitors: 13
Filed: Aug. 05, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 05, 2014
Summary: ORDER MARC T. TREADWLL, District Judge. Before the Court is the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle (Doc. 7) on the Plaintiff's complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 (Doc. 1). After reviewing the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant Georgia Department of Corrections ("GDOC") be dismissed because those claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The Magistrate Judge also recommends dismissing the Plaintiff's First Am
Summary: ORDER MARC T. TREADWLL, District Judge. Before the Court is the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle (Doc. 7) on the Plaintiff's complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 (Doc. 1). After reviewing the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant Georgia Department of Corrections ("GDOC") be dismissed because those claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The Magistrate Judge also recommends dismissing the Plaintiff's First Ame..
More
ORDER
MARC T. TREADWLL, District Judge.
Before the Court is the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle (Doc. 7) on the Plaintiff's complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). After reviewing the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant Georgia Department of Corrections ("GDOC") be dismissed because those claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The Magistrate Judge also recommends dismissing the Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim because the Plaintiff has not alleged any factual assertions in support of that claim. The Plaintiff did not file an objection to the Recommendation.
The Court has reviewed the Recommendation, and the Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The Recommendation is ADOPTED and made the order of this Court. Accordingly, the GDOC and the Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim are DISMISSED from this action. The Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Dunkin, Warren, and Jordan shall be allowed to go forward.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
