TARVER v. OWENS et al
Filing
102
ORDER ADOPTING 96 Report and Recommendations; GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 71 Motion for Summary Judgment; and DENYING 72 Motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 8/15/2017. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
MICHAEL TARVER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHIQUITA FYE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-214 (MTT)
ORDER
United States Magistrate Judge Stephen Hyles recommends denying the
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment based on spoliation (Doc. 72). Doc. 96. The
Magistrate Judge also recommends granting in part and denying in part the Defendants’
motion for summary judgment (Doc. 71), so that the Plaintiff’s claims against Dr. Fye be
allowed to proceed to trial but his claims against Warden McLaughlin be dismissed. Id.
The Defendant has objected to the Recommendation to the extent it recommends
allowing the claims against Dr. Fye to proceed. Doc. 99. The Plaintiff has not objected
to the Recommendation.
The Court has reviewed the Recommendation, and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1), the Court has considered the Defendant’s objection and has made a de novo
determination of the portions of the Recommendation to which the Defendant objects.
The Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Magistrate Judge. The Recommendation is ADOPTED and made the order of this
Court. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 72) is DENIED;
and the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 71) is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part, so that the Plaintiff’s claims against Dr. Fye may proceed to trial but
the claims against Warden McLaughlin are dismissed.
SO ORDERED, this 15th day of August, 2017.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
-2-
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?