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)

Download PDF
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?