Scott v. Officer Davis (INMATE 2)

Filing 36

ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court that: (1) the plaintiff's 34 objection is overruled; (2) the 33 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge is adopted; (3) Defendant Davis' 27 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED to the exten t Defendant seeks dismissal of this case due to Plaintiff's failure to properly exhaust an administrative remedy available to him at the Lee County Detention Center with regard to the allegation presented in the complaint ; (4) this case is DISMISSED with prejudice under 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a) for Plaintiff's failure to exhaust an available administrative remedy prior to filing suit; (5) no costs be taxed herein. Signed by Honorable Judge Truman M. Hobbs on 12/13/13. (djy, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION ANTONIO SCOTT, #263458, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER DAVIS, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 3:12-cv-0226-TMH [WO] ORDER After an independent review of the file, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court that: 1. The plaintiff's objection (Doc. #34) filed on November 8, 2013 to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is overruled; 2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #33) entered on October 30, 2013 is adopted; 3. Defendant Davis’s motion to dismiss (Doc. #27) is GRANTED to the extent Defendant seeks dismissal of this case due to Plaintiff's failure to properly exhaust an administrative remedy available to him at the Lee County Detention Center with regard to the allegation presented in the complaint; 4. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) for Plaintiff's failure to exhaust an available administrative remedy prior to filing suit. 5. No costs be taxed herein. DONE this 13th day of December, 2013. /s/ Truman M. Hobbs TRUMAN M. HOBBS 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?