STINSKI v. CHATMAN et al

Filing 25

ORDER ADOPTING as modified 24 Report and Recommendations; DENYING 21 Motion for Legal Supplies; and GRANTING 18 Motion to Dismiss. The religious freedom claims regarding the denial of religious items an d observances and the equal protection claims against Defendants Chatman and Miller are DISMISSED. The religious freedom claims against Defendants Miller, Eutsey, Baucomb, Harrell, and Pierly; the equal protection claim against Defendant Harrell; and the retaliation claims against Defendants Chatman, Miller, and Eutsey remain. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 1/4/2016. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
DARRYL SCOTT STINSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN BRUCE CHATMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-409 (MTT)

ORDER
Before the Court is the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Charles H. Weigle. (Doc. 24). The Magistrate Judge recommends granting the
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18) and dismissing the complaint without
prejudice. (Doc. 24 at 1). The Plaintiff has not objected to the Recommendation.
Therefore, the Recommendation is reviewed for clear error. See Macort v. Prem, Inc.,
208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (quoting Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Accident Ins., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005)) (“Most circuits agree that ‘[i]n the
absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review,
but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in
order to accept the recommendation.’”).
The Defendants filed their pre-answer Motion to Dismiss before this Court ruled
on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge at screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The Order on the Recommendation allowed more claims to proceed than the
Recommendation because the Plaintiff’s Objection was construed as a motion to amend

his complaint. (Doc. 20). The Motion to Dismiss, however, only addresses those claims
that were allowed to proceed in the original Recommendation. Those claims are the
religious freedom claims regarding the denial of religious items and observances and
equal protection claims against Defendants Chatman and Miller. (Doc. 13 at 6, 8). The
Magistrate Judge’s finding that these claims are unexhausted and should be dismissed
pursuant to the PLRA is not clearly erroneous. Therefore, these claims are
DISMISSED. However, religious freedom claims against Defendants Miller,1 Eutsey,
Baucomb, Harrell, and Pierly; the equal protection claim against Defendant Harrell; and
the retaliation claims against Defendants Chatman, Miller, and Eutsey remain.
The Court has reviewed the Recommendation, and the Court accepts and adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge except as
modified by this Order. The Recommendation is ADOPTED as MODIFIED and made
the order of this Court. Accordingly, the religious freedom claims regarding the denial of
religious items and observances and the equal protection claims against Defendants
Chatman and Miller are DISMISSED. The Motion for Legal Supplies is DENIED as
MOOT. (Doc. 21).

SO ORDERED, this 4th day of January, 2016.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

The claim against Defendant Miller regarding the denial of religious items and observances has been
dismissed as unexhausted. However, the claim for the forcible shave and haircut remains.

‐2‐