CLARK v. ROYAL, CV513-087. (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20140401d50
Visitors: 28
Filed: Mar. 31, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 31, 2014
Summary: ORDER LISA GODBEY WOOD, Chief District Judge. After an independent review of the record, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which objections have been filed. In his objections, Plaintiff states that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity as to his access to the courts and religious violations claims. By Order dated November 8, 2013 Order, these claims were sanctioned by the Court and Defendants were served as to those claims. Plaintiffs obje
Summary: ORDER LISA GODBEY WOOD, Chief District Judge. After an independent review of the record, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which objections have been filed. In his objections, Plaintiff states that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity as to his access to the courts and religious violations claims. By Order dated November 8, 2013 Order, these claims were sanctioned by the Court and Defendants were served as to those claims. Plaintiffs objec..
More
ORDER
LISA GODBEY WOOD, Chief District Judge.
After an independent review of the record, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which objections have been filed. In his objections, Plaintiff states that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity as to his access to the courts and religious violations claims. By Order dated November 8, 2013 Order, these claims were sanctioned by the Court and Defendants were served as to those claims. Plaintiffs objections are without merit. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted as the opinion of the Court.
Plaintiffs Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act claims are dismissed in their entirety. Plaintiffs monetary damages claims against Defendants in their official capacities are dismissed.
Additionally, Plaintiffs objects to the Magistrate Judge's Order dated November 8, 2013 (doc. 7), denying his Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Plaintiffs objection is overruled. The Magistrate Judge's order is neither clearly, erroneous nor contrary to law.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
