Weeks v. Ray et al

Filing 46

MEMORANDUM OPINION Based on its review of the record in this case, the Court finds no misstatements of law in the report and no plain error in the magistrate judges description of the relevant facts. Therefore, the Court adopts the magistrate judges report and accepts his recommendation. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 2/12/2018. (KMG)

FILED
2018 Feb-12 PM 04:50
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHWESTERN DIVISION
GARY LYNN WEEKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIM RAY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:16-cv-1379-MHH-JHE

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On January 22, 2018, the magistrate judge filed a report in which he
recommended that the Court deny plaintiff Gary Lynn Weeks’s motion for
summary judgment and grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
(Doc. 45). The magistrate judge advised the parties of their right to object within
14 days. (Doc. 45, pp. 13-14). To date, no party has filed objections to the report
and recommendation.
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A
district court reviews legal conclusions in a report de novo and reviews for plain
error factual findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d

776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749
(11th Cir. 1988); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).1
Based on its review of the record in this case, the Court finds no
misstatements of law in the report and no plain error in the magistrate judge’s
description of the relevant facts.

Therefore, the Court adopts the magistrate

judge’s report and accepts his recommendation.
The Court will issue a separate final judgment consistent with this
memorandum opinion.
DONE and ORDERED this February 12, 2018.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

When a party objects to a report, a district court must “make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B)-(C).
2