Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

RADFORD v. MARSHALL, 14-00527-KD-C. (2016)

Court: District Court, S.D. Alabama Number: infdco20160115n20 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jan. 15, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 15, 2016
Summary: ORDER KRISTI K. DuBOSE , District Judge . After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, dated December 10, 2015 (Doc. 58) made under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 1 It is ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's motions to amend or supplement the complaint (Docs. 44, 49, 50) are GRANTED; 2. Plaintiff's other motions (Docs. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 48) are
More

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, dated December 10, 2015 (Doc. 58) made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.1 It is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motions to amend or supplement the complaint (Docs. 44, 49, 50) are GRANTED; 2. Plaintiff's other motions (Docs. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 48) are DENIED; 3. Plaintiff's "Case Number, 84 Summons, and 30 days to Amend" (Doc. 45), construed as a motion to amend, is DENIED; 4. Summary Judgment (Docs. 28, 29, 30, and 57)2 is GRANTED in favor of all Defendants; and 5. The claims against Sergeant Cedric Marshall, former Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner Kim T. Thomas, Warden Cynthia Stewart, Lieutenant R. Davis, C.O.I. Bruce A. Fitch, Sergeant E. McQueen, C.O.I C. Brown, C.O.I. R. Washington, and C.O.I. D. Wetzel, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Final judgment in accordance with this Order and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 shall be entered by separate document.

DONE and ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Plaintiff filed a request for a copy of the docket sheet in this case and a document styled as an "objection" to the Report and Recommendation. (Docs. 59-60, respectively). He was mailed a copy of the docket sheet on December 17, 2015. (Doc. 59, docket notes). Plaintiff's "objection" failed to cite any specific grounds upon which his objection is based. (Doc. 60). "Parties filing objections to a magistrate's report and recommendation must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court." Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, Plaintiff's objection was not considered.
2. The Court converted Defendant's Answer (Doc. 28) and Special Report (Doc. 29) to a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 30). Doc. 57 is Defendant's Supplemental Special Report.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer