Files v. Taylor et al (INMATE 2)
ORDER directing as follows: (1) that the plf's 59 Objections are OVERRULED; (2) that the 56 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; (3) that defs Abbett, McMichael, Jennings, and Nail's 51 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the plf's amended complaint against these defs is DISMISSED with prejudice; (4) that these defs are DISMISSED as parties to this action; and (5) that this case with respect to the remaining defs is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 10/10/19. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EARNEST J. FILES, JR.,
CLAYTON KIM TAYLOR, et al.,
) CIV. ACT. NO. 3:17cv615-ECM
On July 10, 2019, the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation recommending
that defendants Abbett, McMichael, Jennings, and Nail’s motion to dismiss be granted.
(Doc. 56). On September 11, 2019, the plaintiff filed objections to the Recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 59). The Court has carefully reviewed the record in this
case, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and the plaintiff’s objections. Upon
an independent review of the file in this case and for good cause, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1. that the Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED;
2. that the Recommendation of the Magistrate is ADOPTED;
3. that defendants Abbett, McMichael, Jennings, and Nail’s motion to dismiss is
GRANTED, and the Plaintiff’s amended complaint against these defendants is
DISMISSED with prejudice.
4. that these defendants are DISMISSED as parties to this action; and
5. that this case with respect to the remaining defendants is REFERRED back to
the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
DONE this 10th day of October, 2019.
/s/ Emily C. Marks
EMILY C. MARKS
CHIEF 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?