LAWSON v. GILLMAN et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 60 Report and Recommendation - granting in part and denying in part 53 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting. Signed by William Terrell Hodges on 11/22/17. (bkp)
Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:15-cv-00308-WTH-GRJ
S J GILLMAN, D A LEAVINS, K MCCRARY,
This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, ECF No. 60, addressing defendant Gillman and McCrary’s Motion for
Summary Judgment, ECF No. 53. The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and
Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28,
United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). The defendants have filed objections at ECF No. 63,
which plaintiff moved to strike at ECF No. 65. Plaintiff does not point to any procedural or
timeliness issue with the objections; he simply disagrees with them. Thus, striking the
objections is not appropriate, but this Court has considered plaintiff’s arguments as part of the de
novo review of the Report and Recommendation based on those objections.
Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed objections, I
have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated
Page 2 of 2
by reference in this order.
To the extent that plaintiff seeks monetary damages from Gillman and McCrary
in their official capacities, summary judgment is granted on those claims.
Summary judgment is also granted on plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Gillman
The Motion for Summary Judgment at ECF No. 53 is denied in all other respects.
DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of November, 2017
Case No: 5:15-cv-00308-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?