HALL v. MOORE, 3:14cv140/MCR/CJK. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
Number: infdco20160202c03
Visitors: 18
Filed: Feb. 01, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 01, 2016
Summary: ORDER M. CASEY RODGERS , Chief District Judge . This cause comes on for consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated December 29, 2015. ECF No. 61. The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). After reviewing any timely objections to the Recommendation, the Court has determined that the Report and Recommendation should b
Summary: ORDER M. CASEY RODGERS , Chief District Judge . This cause comes on for consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated December 29, 2015. ECF No. 61. The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). After reviewing any timely objections to the Recommendation, the Court has determined that the Report and Recommendation should be..
More
ORDER
M. CASEY RODGERS, Chief District Judge.
This cause comes on for consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated December 29, 2015. ECF No. 61. The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). After reviewing any timely objections to the Recommendation, the Court has determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 61, is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.
2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 54, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
a. Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendants Gielow and Hood, on the basis of qualified immunity.
b. Summary judgment is DENIED as to Defendant Thornhill.
3. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings on Plaintiff's individual capacity Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Thornhill.
DONE AND ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
