Filed: Mar. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2019
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MARK E. WALKER , Chief District Judge . This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Third Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 88, and has also reviewed de novo Defendants' objections to the third report and recommendation, ECF No. 89. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted, over Defendants' objections, as this Court's opinion. While a close call, this Court agrees that it's up
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MARK E. WALKER , Chief District Judge . This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Third Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 88, and has also reviewed de novo Defendants' objections to the third report and recommendation, ECF No. 89. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted, over Defendants' objections, as this Court's opinion. While a close call, this Court agrees that it's up t..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MARK E. WALKER, Chief District Judge.
This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Third Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 88, and has also reviewed de novo Defendants' objections to the third report and recommendation, ECF No. 89. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted, over Defendants' objections, as this Court's opinion. While a close call, this Court agrees that it's up to a jury to resolve the disputed facts such as whether Thomas was involved and ultimately to determine whether defendants were deliberately indifferent. The Defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 77, is DENIED because there is a genuine dispute of material fact. Plaintiff's motion, ECF No. 87, is DENIED and this case is REMANDED to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED
