Hendricks v. Carter et al (INMATE 1)

Filing 64

ORDER that Plf's 63 Objection is OVERRULED, the court ADOPTS the 59 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1) The Motion to Dismiss on behalf of the Dfts is DENIED to the extent the Dfts seek dismissal o f the case due to the Plf's failure to properly exhaust an administrative remedy previously available to him in the Montgomery City Jail; 2) The Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of the Dfts is GRANTED; 3) This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 9/15/2015. (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORTHE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

LEONARD CHARLES HENDRICKS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JAMES A. CARTER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:12-cv-398-WHA
(WO)

ORDER
This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #59),
entered on July 16, 2015, and the Plaintiff’s Objection thereto (Doc. #63), filed on August 17,
2015.
The court has conducted an independent evaluation and de novo review of the file in this
case and, having done so, finds the objection to be without merit.
In the Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge found that the Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss on the basis of failure to exhaust administrative remedies should be denied, but then
further found that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the merits should be
granted. The Plaintiff’s only objection is premised solely on the exhaustion of administrative
remedies issue, which the Magistrate Judge recommended resolving in his favor. Therefore, the
Plaintiff’s objection is OVERRULED, the court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The Motion to Dismiss on behalf of the Defendants is DENIED to the extent the
Defendants seek dismissal of the case due to the Plaintiff’s failure to properly exhaust an
administrative remedy previously available to him in the Montgomery City Jail.
2. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of the Defendants is GRANTED.
3. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
DONE this 15th day of September, 2015.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE