HAMILTON v. MAULDIN, 14-CV-4033. (2015)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20150304946
Visitors: 11
Filed: Mar. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2015
Summary: ORDER SUSAN O. HICKEY , District Judge . Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed February 5, 2015, by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 16. Judge Bryant recommends that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) be granted. Plaintiff has responded with objections, and the Court has reviewed the objections. ECF No. 17. The Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds that Plaintiff's objections of
Summary: ORDER SUSAN O. HICKEY , District Judge . Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed February 5, 2015, by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 16. Judge Bryant recommends that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) be granted. Plaintiff has responded with objections, and the Court has reviewed the objections. ECF No. 17. The Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds that Plaintiff's objections off..
More
ORDER
SUSAN O. HICKEY, District Judge.
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed February 5, 2015, by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 16. Judge Bryant recommends that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) be granted. Plaintiff has responded with objections, and the Court has reviewed the objections. ECF No. 17. The Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds that Plaintiff's objections offer neither law nor fact requiring departure from the Report and Recommendation.1 After reviewing the record de novo, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in toto.
Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. In his objections, Plaintiff restates his claim that Defendant Mauldin violated his constitutional rights by denying him a sleeping mat and forcing him to sleep on the concrete floor for eight nights. Plaintiff's general factual allegations are not disputed. Assuming his allegations are true, however, Plaintiff has failed to show that Defendant's conduct constitutes an Eighth Amendment violation. The Court agrees with Judge Bryant's reasoning set forth in the Report and Recommendation.
Source: Leagle
