Weeks v. Clark (INMATE 1)
Filing
42
ORDER: It is the ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court that: 1. The 41 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. 2. The defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as further set out in the order. 3. This case is DISMISSED with prejudi ce in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) for the plaintiff's failure to properly exhaust an administrative remedy provided to him during his confinement in the Macon County Jail as this remedy is nolonger available to him with respect to the claims presented in this cause of action. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 11/25/2014. (dmn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
RONALD WEEKS, #283804,
Plaintiff,
v.
MELVIN CLARK,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 3:12-cv-610-WHA
WO
ORDER
On October 30, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. #41) in
this case to which no timely objections have been filed. Upon an independent review of the
file in this case and upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, it
is the
ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court that:
1. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED.
2. The defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED as the plaintiff failed to
properly exhaust an administrative remedy previously available to him at the Macon
County Jail prior to filing this federal civil action.
3. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the provisions of 42
U.S.C. ยง 1997e(a) for the plaintiff's failure to properly exhaust an administrative remedy
provided to him during his confinement in the Macon County Jail as this remedy is no
longer available to him with respect to the claims presented in this cause of action.
DONE this the 25th day of November, 2014.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton
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?