Filing 46

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 44 , 45 and granting 33 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 37 Motion to Dismiss. The Clerk is directed to refer this matter back to the Magistrate for further proceedings. Signed by William Terrell Hodges on 7/18/17. (bkp)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE DIVISION DONNIE PHILLIPS, PLAINTIFF, -vs- Case No. 1:15-cv-00110-WTH-GRJ CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DAVID KEEN, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER KATHERINE PITTMAN, DOCTOR RONALD SOLORZANO, DEFENDANTS. ______________________________/ ORDER This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 44) regarding the motion to dismiss of defendants Keen and Pittman, and Report and Recommendation (Doc. 45) regarding the motion to dismiss of defendant Solorzano. The parties have been furnished a copy of each Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). The time for filing objections has passed, and none have been filed. Having considered each Report and Recommendation, I have determined that each should be adopted. The Report and Recommendation at Doc. 44 and the Report and Recommendation at Doc. 45 are accepted and incorporated herein. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment which states as follows: Page 2 of 2 “Defendants Keen and Pittman’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 33) is granted with prejudice as to Count I and is granted without prejudice as to Count III. Defendant Solorzano’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 37) is denied.” The clerk is directed to terminate Keen and Pittman as defendants. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. DONE and ORDERED at Gainesville, Florida this 18th day of July, 2017. Case No: 1:15-cv-00110-WTH-GRJ

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?