Gwathney v. Keller et al (INMATE1)

Filing 57

ORDER: After an independent evaluation and de novo review; 1. The court finds Warren's 53 Objections to the Recommendation of 10/12/2011, to be meritorious to the extent indicated by the Magistrate Judge in the 54 Supplemental Recommendation of 11/16/2011, and to the extent, Warren's objections to the Recommendation of 10/12/2011 are SUSTAINED. In all other respects, the court finds Warren's 52 Objections to the Recommendation of 10/12/2011, to be without merit, and they are hereby OVERRULED. 2. The court finds Warren's 56 Objections to the 56 Supplemental Recommendation of 11/16/2011 to be without merit, and they are hereby OVERRULED. To the extent indicated above, the court hereby adopts the 49 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and the 54 Supplemental Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's 48 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Judge Truman M. Hobbs on 12/12/2011. (dmn, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
CHARLES GWATHNEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN KELLER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 2:09cv479-TMH
(WO)

ORDER
Before the court are the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge entered on October
12, 2011 (Doc. No. 49), the objections to that Recommendation filed by Defendant Roger
Warren (“Warren”) on October 26, 2011 (Doc. No. 52), the Supplemental Recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge entered on November 16, 2011 (Doc. No. 54), and the objections
to the Supplemental Recommendation filed by Warren on November 30, 2011 (Doc. No.
56).
After an independent evaluation and de novo review:
1.

The court finds Warren’s objections to the Recommendation of
October 12, 2011 (Doc. No. 52), to be meritorious to the extent
indicated by the Magistrate Judge in the Supplemental
Recommendation of November 16, 2011 (Doc. No. 54), and to
that extent, Warren’s objections to the Recommendation of
October 12, 2011 are SUSTAINED. In all other respects, the

court finds Warren’s objections to the Recommendation of
October 12, 2011 (Doc. No. 52), to be without merit, and they
are hereby OVERRULED.
2.

The court finds Warren’s objections to the Supplemental
Recommendation of November 16, 2011 (Doc. No. 56), to be
without merit, and they are hereby OVERRULED.

To the extent indicated above, the court hereby adopts the Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 49) and the Supplemental Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge (Doc. No. 54). Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 48) is DENIED.
DONE this the 12th day of December, 2011.

/s/ Truman M. Hobbs
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2