Huguley v. Lockhart et al (INMATE2)

Filing 43

ORDER AND OPINION that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 42 beand is hereby ADOPTED and that: 1. Defendants Lockhart's, Stewart's, and Morgan's motions for summary judgment 31 , 32 are GRANTED as further set out; 2. This case against Defendants Lockhart, Stewart, and Morgan are DISMISSED with prejudice as further set out; 3. Defendant Lett's motion for summary judgment 26 is GRANTED and this case against him is DISMISSED with prejudice; 4. Judgment is ENTERED in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff; and 5. Costs are TAXED against Plaintiff for which execution may issue. Signed by Honorable Judge Truman M. Hobbs on 8/7/2013. (jg, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
COREY JERMAINE HUGULEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
SID LOCKHART, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10cv803-TMH

ORDER AND OPINION
On May 28, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this case to which
no timely objections have been filed. (Doc. # 42). 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 that:
1.

Defendants Lockhart’s, Stewart’s, and Morgan’s motions for summary

judgment (Doc. Nos. 31, 32) are GRANTED to the extent these Defendants seek dismissal
of this case against them due to Plaintiff's failure to properly exhaust an administrative
remedy previously available to him at the Chambers County Jail;
2.

This case against Defendants Lockhart, Stewart, and Morgan are DISMISSED

with prejudice in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) for Plaintiff's
failure to exhaust an administrative remedy available to him during his confinement in the
Chambers County Jail;

3.

Defendant Lett’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 26) is GRANTED

and this case against him is DISMISSED with prejudice;
4.

Judgment is ENTERED in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff; and

5.

Costs are TAXED against Plaintiff for which execution may issue.

Done this the 7th day of August, 2013.
/s/ Truman M. Hobbs
________________________________________
TRUMAN M. HOBBS
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2