Hooten v. Fowlkes et al
Filing
50
ORDER adopting 44 Report and Recommendations and granting 21 Motion to Dismiss. Ordered by Judge C. Ashley Royal on 3/15/12 (lap)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
MARK HOOTEN,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
v.
:
:
JOSEPH FOWLKES, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
__________________________________________
CASE NO.
5:11‐CV‐115 (CAR)
ORDER ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Currently before the Court is the Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be granted, and that Plaintiff’s
Motion to Strike be denied. [Doc. 44]. On January 23, 2012, Plaintiff sought an
extension of time to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation. [Doc.
45]. That motion was granted, and Plaintiff was given an additional 14 days to file
objections. No objection was filed, and having considered the matter, this Court agrees
with the findings and conclusions of the United States Magistrate Judge. The
Recommendation is therefore ADOPTED and MADE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims arising from the failure to provide or fit Plaintiff
for a shoe insert in September and October 2010 against Defendants Dr. Joseph Fowlkes,
Dr. Monica Hill, Virginia Cox, and Connie Kilgore, in their individual capacities, will be
allowed to proceed. In addition, Plaintiff’s claims alleging the general denial of medical
care based on Defendants’ refusal to follow the prescribed orders of Plaintiff’s outside
physician will be allowed to proceed. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Nick Taylor,
Robert Toole, Nancy Davis, Todd Tripp, and Melinda Thompson are DISMISSED with
prejudice. Further, all claims against Defendants in their official capacities are
DISMISSED with prejudice.
SO ORDERED, this 15th day of March, 2012.
AES
S/ C. Ashley Royal
C. ASHLEY ROYAL, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?