FULGHAM v. MCLAUGHLIN et al
ORDER adopting 5 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED as against Defendant Jones and as to PlaintiffsFourteenth and Eighth Amendment claims related to his placement in the disciplinary program. Plaintiffs retaliation claim may proceed against Defendants McLaughlin and Blakely.Ordered by U.S. District Judge W LOUIS SANDS on 04/25/14 (cma)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
RODNEY SHANE FULGHAM,
GREGORY McLAUGHLIN, DON
BLAKELY, and MISTIE JONES,
Case No. 5:14-CV-68 (WLS)
Before the Court is a Recommendation (Doc. 5) from United States Magistrate
Judge Stephen Hyles, entered March 24, 2014. It is recommended that the Court dismiss
all of Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims regarding his transfer out of protective custody
and into the disciplinary program. (Id. at 7.) It is also recommended that Plaintiff’s
retaliation claim be dismissed against Defendant Mistie Jones but that Plaintiff be
permitted to proceed with his retaliation claim against Defendants Gregory McLaughlin
and Don Blakely. (Id. at 7-8.) No objections were filed within the fourteen-day period
provided pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The objection period expired on April 7,
2014. (See Doc. 5; Docket).
Upon full review and consideration upon the record, the Court finds that said
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5) should be, and hereby is, ACCEPTED,
ADOPTED and made the Order of this Court for reason of the findings made and
reasons stated therein. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint, brought pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, is DISMISSED as against Defendant Jones and as to Plaintiff’s
Fourteenth and Eighth Amendment claims related to his placement in the disciplinary
program. Plaintiff’s § 1983 retaliation claim may, however, proceed against Defendants
McLaughlin and Blakely.
SO ORDERED, this 25th day of April 2014.
/s/ W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, 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?