Radford v. Marshall et al

Filing 61

ORDER ADOPTING 58 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Plaintiff's motions at docs 44, 49 and 50 are granted. Plaintiff's motions at docs 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 48 are denied. Plaintiff's Motion for Case Number, 84 Summons and 30 days to Amend (doc. 45) is denied and Defendants' motions for summary judgment are granted on all counts and said defendants are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 1/15/2016. (copy to plaintiff) (cmj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
THOMAS RADFORD,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CEDRIC MARSHALL, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION 14-00527-KD-C

ORDER
After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the
issues raised, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, dated December 10,
2015 (Doc. 58) made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.1 It
is ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motions to amend or supplement the complaint (Docs. 44, 49, 50) are
GRANTED;
2. Plaintiff’s other motions (Docs. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 48) are DENIED;
3. Plaintiff’s “Case Number, 84 Summons, and 30 days to Amend” (Doc. 45), construed
as a motion to amend, is DENIED;
4. Summary Judgment (Docs. 28, 29, 30, and 57) 2 is GRANTED in favor of all
Defendants; and

1

Plaintiff filed a request for a copy of the docket sheet in this case and a document styled as an “objection” to the
Report and Recommendation. (Docs. 59-60, respectively). He was mailed a copy of the docket sheet on December
17, 2015. (Doc. 59, docket notes). Plaintiff’s “objection” failed to cite any specific grounds upon which his
objection is based. (Doc. 60). “Parties filing objections to a magistrate’s report and recommendation must
specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered
by the district court.” Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection
was not considered.
2
The Court converted Defendant’s Answer (Doc. 28) and Special Report (Doc. 29) to a Motion for Summary
Judgment. (Doc. 30). Doc. 57 is Defendant’s Supplemental Special Report.

1

5. The claims against Sergeant Cedric Marshall, former Alabama Department of
Corrections Commissioner Kim T. Thomas, Warden Cynthia Stewart, Lieutenant R.
Davis, C.O.I. Bruce A. Fitch, Sergeant E. McQueen, C.O.I C. Brown, C.O.I. R.
Washington, and C.O.I. D. Wetzel, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Final judgment in accordance with this Order and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58
shall be entered by separate document.
DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of January 2016.
/s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2