BONNER v. SMYRE, CV 114-203. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20150915847
Visitors: 2
Filed: Sep. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 14, 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 no objections have been filed. Although a second Defendant has been added since the Magistrate Judge filed his Report and Recommendation, the claim raised against Defendant Zishler relates to an allegation of use of excessive force at Augusta State Medical Prison on November 18, 2013. Thus, the Magistrate Judge's analysis th
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 no objections have been filed. Although a second Defendant has been added since the Magistrate Judge filed his Report and Recommendation, the claim raised against Defendant Zishler relates to an allegation of use of excessive force at Augusta State Medical Prison on November 18, 2013. Thus, the Magistrate Judge's analysis tha..
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 no objections have been filed. Although a second Defendant has been added since the Magistrate Judge filed his Report and Recommendation, the claim raised against Defendant Zishler relates to an allegation of use of excessive force at Augusta State Medical Prison on November 18, 2013. Thus, the Magistrate Judge's analysis thatPlaintiffhas notshown a likelihood of success on the merits of his request for injunctive relief concerning circumstances at his current place of incarceration, Valdosta State Prison, still applies.Likewise, although there are now two Defendants in the case, neither has control over Plaintiffs treatment at his current prison. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion and DENIES Plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief. (Doc. nos. 37-1, 37-2.)
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
