Baisden v. Corizon Health Services et al (INMATE 1)
Filing
52
ORDER as follows: (1) The 51 Recommendation is ADOPTED. (2) Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED to the extent Defendants seek dismissal of this action based upon Plaintiff's failure to properly exhaust an administrative remedy avail able to him at the Staton Correctional Facility prior to initiating this cause of action. (3) This action is DISMISSED without prejudice under 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a) for Plaintiff's failure to properly exhaust an administrative remedy before seeking relief from this court. (4) No costs are taxed. A final judgment will be entered separately. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 11/16/2016.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
LARRY ROGER BAISDEN, II,
AIS #298382,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORIZON HEALTH SERVICES
& L. THOMAS, in her individual
and official capacity,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 2:15-CV-550-WKW
[WO]
ORDER
On October 20, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation to which
no timely objections have been filed. (Doc. # 51.) Upon an independent review of
the record and upon consideration of the Recommendation, it is ORDERED as
follows:
(1)
The Recommendation is ADOPTED.
(2)
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED to the extent Defendants
seek dismissal of this action based upon Plaintiff’s failure to properly exhaust an
administrative remedy available to him at the Staton Correctional Facility prior to
initiating this cause of action.
(3)
This action is DISMISSED without prejudice under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a) for Plaintiff’s failure to properly exhaust an administrative remedy before
seeking relief from this court.
(4)
No costs are taxed.
A final judgment will be entered separately.
DONE this 16th day of November, 2016.
/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?