Reeves v. Siddiq (INMATE 2)

Filing 19

ORDERING and ADJUDGING that the 18 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge be and is hereby ADOPTED, and this case be and is hereby DISMISSED as follows: (1) def's 16 Motion to Dismiss; is GRANTED to the extent def seeks dism issal of this case due to Plf's failure to properly exhaust an administrative remedy prior to initiating this cause of action; (2) this case is DISMISSED without prejudice under 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a) for Plf's failure to properly exhaust an administrative remedy before seeking relief from this court; (3) No costs are taxed. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 6/28/18. (djy, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION RICHARD KYLE REEVES, #255 472, Plaintiff, v. DOCTOR TAHIR SIDDIQ, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-825-WHA ) ) ) ) ORDER On June 5, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation to which no timely objection have been filed. Doc. 18. Upon an independent review of the file in this case and upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge be and is hereby ADOPTED, and this case be and is hereby DISMISSED as follows: 1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 16) is GRANTED to the extent Defendant seeks dismissal of this case due to Plaintiff's failure to properly exhaust an administrative remedy prior to initiating this cause of action. 2. This case 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. 3. No costs are taxed. A Final Judgment will be entered separately. Done, this 28th day of June 2018. /s/ W. Harold Albritton W. HAROLD ALBRITTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?