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.

Download PDF
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?