ORDER

KRISTINE G. BAKER, District Judge.

The Court has reviewed the Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray (Dkt. No. 102). Plaintiff Garrett Chamblis has not filed objections, and the time to file objections has passed. After careful consideration of the Recommended Disposition, the Court concludes that the Recommended Disposition should be approved and adopted in its entirety as this Court's findings in all respects (Id.). Consistent with the Recommended Disposition, the Court grants, in part, and denies, in part, the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Dr. Ronald Stukey, Patrick Drummond, Estella Bland, Geraldine Campbell, and Amanda Rose Sackett (Dkt. No. 87).

The Court previously adopted Judge Ray's Partial Recommended Disposition (Dkt. Nos. 81, 83). In doing so, the Court granted summary judgment and dismissed without prejudice Mr. Chamblis's constitutional claims against separate defendants Dr. Stukey, Mr. Drummond, Ms. Campbell, and Ms. Sackett because Mr. Chamblis failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on those claims (Id.). Thus, Mr. Chamblis's only remaining constitutional claim alleges that Ms. Bland was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs related to his upper arm and shoulder injuries between May 18, 2017, and August 29, 2017 (Dkt. Nos. 2, at 15, 17-18; 102, at 2). Mr. Chamblis's state law medical malpractice and negligence claims remain pending against all five defendants (Dkt. Nos. 2, at 18-19; 102, at 3). Judge Ray recommends granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on the constitutional claim asserted against Ms. Bland and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Chamblis's pendent state law claims (Dkt. No. 102, at 3). Accordingly, after careful consideration, the Court concludes that the Recommended Disposition should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted in its entirety as this Court's findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 102). The Court grants defendants' motion for summary judgment on the constitutional claim asserted against Ms. Bland and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Chamblis's pendent state law claims (Id.).

It is therefore ordered that:

1. The Court grants, in part, defendants' motion for summary judgment as it pertains to Mr. Chamblis's sole remaining constitutional claim that Ms. Bland provided inadequate medical care (Dkt. No. 87);

2. The Court dismisses with prejudice Mr. Chamblis's constitutional claim against Ms. Bland (Dkt. No. 2);

3. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Chamblis's remaining state law claims against defendants and dismisses those claims without prejudice (Id.); and

4. The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith.

It is so ordered.