Barley v. Jamison et al (INMATE1)

Filing 95

ORDER directing as follows: (1) Mr. Barley's objections (Doc. # 94 ) are OVERRULED; (2) The Recommendation (Doc. # 90 ) is ADOPTED; (3) Defendants' motions for summary judgment (see Docs. # 28 , 29 , 36 , 37 , and 56 ) are GRANTED; (4) This is case is DISMISSED with prejudice, as further set out. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 1/16/14. (scn, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION DANIEL M. BARLEY, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD ALLEN, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2:10-CV-989-WKW ORDER On October 4, 2013 the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this case. (Doc. # 90.) On November 22, 2013, Plaintiff Daniel M. Barley filed objections. (Doc. # 94.) The court has conducted an independent and de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to which the objections are made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court concludes that the objections are without merit, and the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is due to be adopted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Mr. Barley’s objections (Doc. # 94) are OVERRULED; 2. The Recommendation (Doc. # 90) is ADOPTED; 3. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (see Docs. # 28, 29, 36, 37, and 56) are GRANTED; 4. This is case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A separate final judgment will be entered. DONE this 16th day of January, 2014. /s/ W. Keith Watkins CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?