Carter v. Kent, 2:15cv355-MHT. (2018)
Court: District Court, M.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20180403691
Visitors: 11
Filed: Apr. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 02, 2018
Summary: OPINION MYRON H. THOMPSON , District Judge . Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, plaintiff, a state inmate, filed this lawsuit claiming that defendants acted with deliberate indifference when he suffered an accidental chemical exposure to his eye. This lawsuit is now before the court on the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge that defendants' motions for summary judgment be granted because plaintiff did not meet the statute of limitations. There are no objections to the recommend
Summary: OPINION MYRON H. THOMPSON , District Judge . Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, plaintiff, a state inmate, filed this lawsuit claiming that defendants acted with deliberate indifference when he suffered an accidental chemical exposure to his eye. This lawsuit is now before the court on the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge that defendants' motions for summary judgment be granted because plaintiff did not meet the statute of limitations. There are no objections to the recommenda..
More
OPINION
MYRON H. THOMPSON, District Judge.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff, a state inmate, filed this lawsuit claiming that defendants acted with deliberate indifference when he suffered an accidental chemical exposure to his eye. This lawsuit is now before the court on the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge that defendants' motions for summary judgment be granted because plaintiff did not meet the statute of limitations. There are no objections to the recommendation. After an independent and de novo review of the record, the court concludes that the magistrate judge's recommendation should be adopted.
An appropriate judgment will be entered.
Source: Leagle
