Huggins v. Owens et al

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING 7 Report and Recommendations; ADOPTING 8 Report and Recommendations; and DENYING 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 08/19/2011. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
DAVID PAUL HUGGINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRIAN OWENS, Commissioner, et al.,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-CV-117(MTT)

ORDER
This case is before the Court on the Recommendations (Docs. 7 and 8) of United
States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle pursuant to his 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) initial
review.
In his first Recommendation (Doc. 7), the Magistrate Judge recommends denying
the Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 3) because the Plaintiff cannot
show a likelihood of success on the merits or that the Plaintiff will suffer irreparable
injury absent an injunction. The Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Recommendation
(Doc. 7). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has thoroughly considered the
Plaintiff’s Objection and has made a de novo determination of the portions of the
Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. The Court accepts and adopts the findings,
conclusions and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge in its Recommendation
(Doc. 7). Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 3) is DENIED.
In his second Recommendation (Doc. 8), the Magistrate Judge recommends
allowing the Plaintiff’s case to proceed against all Defendants except for “Prisoner
Health Care Provider.” The case cannot proceed against this defendant because the
claims against it are respondeat superior claims, which are not available under § 1983.

The Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Recommendation (Doc. 12). Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has thoroughly considered the Plaintiff’s Objection and
has made a de novo determination of the portions of the Recommendation to which
Plaintiff objects. The Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions and
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge in its Recommendation (Doc. 8). Prisoner
Health Care Provider is DISMISSED from this litigation, but the case will proceed
against all remaining Defendants. Therefore, service is to be made on the remaining
Defendants.
SO ORDERED, this the 19th day of August, 2011.

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