FULWOOD v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
Filing
32
ORDER ADOPTING 30 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Plaintiff's 29 Fourth Amended Complaint is DISMISSED as to all claims except plaintiff's First Amendment claims against ARNOLD and PRITT. Plaintiff's 29 request for this case to proceed as a class action suit is DENIED. Plaintiff shall file a fifth amended complaint limited to his First Amendment claims against ARNOLD and PRITT. Case is REMANDED to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.(Amended Pleadings due by 3/15/2013.). Signed by CHIEF JUDGE M CASEY RODGERS on 2/19/2013. (jws)
Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
LENNIE FULWOOD,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO. 4:12cv156-SPM/CAS
CHARLES E. SAMUEL, JR., et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the court on the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation dated January 9, 2012. (Doc. 30). No objections have been filed.
Having considered the Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),
I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1.
The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 30) is ADOPTED
and incorporated by reference in this order.
2.
Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint (doc. 29) is DISMISSED as to all claims
except plaintiff’s First Amendment claims against defendants Arnold and Pritt.
3.
Plaintiff’s request for this case to proceed as a class action suit (doc. 29) is
DENIED.
4.
On or before March 15, 2013, plaintiff shall file a fifth amended complaint
limited to his First Amendment claims against defendants Arnold and Pritt.
5.
This case is remanded to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of February, 2013.
s/
M. Casey Rodgers
M. CASEY RODGERS
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?