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, )

Download PDF
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?