Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

DICKERSON v. BYRD, 5:13-cv-202(DCB)(MTP). (2015)

Court: District Court, S.D. Mississippi Number: infdco20150714895 Visitors: 4
Filed: Jul. 13, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 13, 2015
Summary: ORDER DAVID BRAMLETTE , District Judge . This cause is before the Court on the plaintiff's "Correspondence Letter" (docket entry 49) with reference to this Court's Order Adopting Report and Recommendations (docket entry 48). The Court treats the plaintiff's letter as a motion for reconsideration of its Order dated April 6, 2015. The plaintiff requests that his claims regarding an unanswered prison grievance not be dismissed. As this Court previously found, the plaintiff alleges he filed
More

ORDER

This cause is before the Court on the plaintiff's "Correspondence Letter" (docket entry 49) with reference to this Court's Order Adopting Report and Recommendations (docket entry 48). The Court treats the plaintiff's letter as a motion for reconsideration of its Order dated April 6, 2015. The plaintiff requests that his claims regarding an unanswered prison grievance not be dismissed.

As this Court previously found, the plaintiff alleges he filed a grievance pursuant to the Wilkinson County Correctional Facility ("WCCF")'s Administrative Remedy Procedure ("ARP"), complaining of an attack by other inmates. The plaintiff further alleges that his ARP went unanswered. He names Correctional Corporation of America ("CCA") as a defendant because it managed WCCF during the relevant time period and the plaintiff believes it is responsible for its employees' failure to respond to the ARP. The plaintiff has not, however, shown that he suffered any adverse result from the allegedly ignored ARP. In fact, his claims regarding the alleged assault are currently under consideration by Magistrate Judge Parker. The Court finds that since the issues raised by the plaintiff are currently before Magistrate Judge Parker, he is not entitled to bring another prison grievance regarding the same alleged assault. His motion for reconsideration shall therefore be denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff's "Correspondence Letter" (docket entry 49) with reference to this Court's Order Adopting Report and Recommendations (docket entry 48), which the Court treats as a motion for reconsideration of its Order dated April 6, 2015, is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer