Jackson v. Burnside et al

Filing 76

ORDER adopting 71 Report and Recommendations and granting in part and denying in part 44 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The Motion is DENIED with regard to the Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment individual capacity claims and GRANTED with regard to all other claims. Order adopting 70 Report and Recommendations and denying 61 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 7/27/2012. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
MARK WAYNE JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. EDWARD H. BURNSIDE and
CALVIN RAMSEY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10-CV-73 (MTT)

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle. (Doc. 71). The Magistrate Judge, having
reviewed the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, recommends granting the Motion on the
Plaintiff’s official capacity claims. The Magistrate Judge also recommends dismissing
the Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief and attorney’s fees. The Magistrate Judge
further recommends allowing the Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment individual capacity
claims against the Defendants to go forward. The Parties filed objections to the
Recommendation.1 (Docs. 72, 73). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has
thoroughly considered the Objections and has made a de novo determination of the
portions of the Recommendation to which the Parties object.
The Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions and recommendations of
the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED with regard to the Plaintiff’s

1

As the Defendants point out in their Response to the Plaintiff’s Objection, the Plaintiff’s Objection is
actually a concurrence with the Recommendation.

Eighth Amendment individual capacity claims and GRANTED with regard to all other
claims.2
SO ORDERED, this 27th day of July, 2012.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

Although the Recommendation denied the Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief, the Magistrate Judge
prepared another Recommendation on that issue. (Doc. 70). Because the Court has denied the
Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief in this Order, the Court also adopts the Recommendation to Deny
the Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

-2-