Filed: Sep. 10, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 10, 2015
Summary: ORDER J. RANDAL HALL , District Judge . After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which objections have been filed (doc. nos. 36, 40, 41, 42, 43). Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES both parties' objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as the opinion of the court. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's official capacity claims for compensatory damages against Defendants, and DE
Summary: ORDER J. RANDAL HALL , District Judge . After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which objections have been filed (doc. nos. 36, 40, 41, 42, 43). Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES both parties' objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as the opinion of the court. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's official capacity claims for compensatory damages against Defendants, and DEN..
More
ORDER
J. RANDAL HALL, District Judge.
After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which objections have been filed (doc. nos. 36, 40, 41, 42, 43). Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES both parties' objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as the opinion of the court. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's official capacity claims for compensatory damages against Defendants, and DENIES Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiff's claim against both Defendants in their individual capacities. Defendants are required to file an answer to Plaintiff's complaint within fourteen days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A). Furthermore, the stay of discovery currently in place is lifted (doc. no. 25), and the Clerk shall issue a Scheduling Notice setting the deadlines in this case upon the filing of Defendants' answer.
SO ORDERED.
