ORDER

KRISTINE G. BAKER, District Judge.

The Court has received several Proposed Findings and Recommendations from United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. Nos. 10, 27, 40). The Court addresses each in turn.

With respect to the first set of Proposed Findings and Recommendations sent to the Court, plaintiff Levonia Tidwell Gray has not filed objections, and the time to do so has passed (Dkt. No. 10). After careful review of the first Proposed Findings and Recommendations, the Court concludes that the first Proposed Findings and Recommendations should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted as this Court's findings in all respects (Id.). As a result, the Court dismisses without prejudice Mr. Gray's claims against separate defendants James Gibson, Wendy Kelley, and Dexter L. Payne.

With respect to the second set of Proposed Findings and Recommendations sent to the Court, Mr. Gray filed objections (Dkt. Nos. 27, 30). After carefully considering the second Proposed Findings and Recommendations and Mr. Gray's objections, and after conducting a de novo review of the record, the Court determines that the second Proposed Findings and Recommendations should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted as this Court's findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 27). In his objections, Mr. Gray restates the allegations in his complaint that purportedly relate to defendant Amanda Gray. The Court concurs with the second Proposed Findings and Recommendations' analysis of these allegations. As a result, the Court grants Ms. Gray's motion to dismiss and dismisses without prejudice Mr. Gray's claims against her (Dkt. No. 23).

With respect to the third set of Proposed Findings and Recommendations sent to the Court, Mr. Gray filed two objections (Dkt. Nos. 40, 41, 43). After carefully considering the third Proposed Findings and Recommendations and Mr. Gray's objections, and after conducting a de novo review of the record, the Court determines that the third Proposed Findings and Recommendations should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted as this Court's findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 40). In his objections, Mr. Gray restates the allegations in his complaint that purportedly relate to defendant Carmelita Haynes. The Court concurs with the third Proposed Findings and Recommendations' analysis of these allegations. As a result, the Court grants Ms. Haynes's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 34). The Court dismisses with prejudice Mr. Gray's claims against Ms. Haynes in her official capacity and dismisses without prejudice Mr. Gray's claims against Ms. Haynes in her individual capacity. The Court also dismisses without prejudice Mr. Gray's inadequate medical care claim against the Doe defendant, due to a lack of service. To the extent Mr. Gray represents in his objections that he intended defendant Amanda Gray to be the Doe defendant, for the reasons previously stated in this Order, the Court dismisses without prejudice Mr. Gray's claims against Ms. Gray.

Mr. Gray filed three motions for status update (Dkt. Nos. 42, 43, 44). The Court denies those motions as moot. Having resolved all of Mr. Gray's claims and pending motions, the Court enters a separate Judgment in this matter. The Clerk is instructed to close this case. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Court's Order adopting these Proposed Findings and Recommendations would not be taken in good faith.

It is so ordered.