Denney v. Nelson et al

Filing 92

ORDER finding as moot 76 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 83 Motion to Dismiss; adopting Report and Recommendations re 91 Report and Recommendations. Ordered by Judge W. Louis Sands on 3/30/2011. (bcl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ALBANY DIVISION MICHAEL DAVID DENNEY, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : CYNTHIA NELSON, : : Defendant. : ____________________________________:

CASE NO: 1:06-cv-172 (WLS)

ORDER Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff, filed March 11, 2011. (Doc. 91). It is recommended that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 83) be granted and that Plaintiff's case, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 2), be dismissed without prejudice for abuse of the judicial process. (Doc. 91 at 6-7). It is also recommended that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 76) be denied as moot. (Doc. 91 at 7). The Report and Recommendation provided the Parties with fourteen (14) days1 from the date of its service to file written objections to the recommendations therein. (Id. at 7). The period for filing objections expired on Monday, March 28, 2011; no objections have been filed to date. (See Docket). In view of the absence of any objections from the record of this case and the Court's consideration of the record as a whole, United States Magistrate Judge Langstaff's March 11, 2011 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 91) is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and made the Order

The Parties were given an additional three days because service was made by mail. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (adding three days to specified period within which a party may act if service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(C) by mailing process to a party's last known address).

1

1

of this Court for reason of the findings made and reasons stated therein.

Accordingly,

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 83) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's § 1983 case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). In view of the Court's grant of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. 76) is DENIED AS MOOT. SO ORDERED, this 30th day of March 2011.

/s/ W. Louis Sands THE HONORABLE W. LOUIS SANDS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2