DANIELS v. MCLAUGHLIN et al

Filing 79

ORDER ADOPTING 75 Report and Recommendations and GRANTING 69 Defendants Carlos Bernard Felton, Octavia Crawford, and Rodney Sutton's Motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 6/5/2017. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
DERRICK JOHN RAYMOND DANIELS,
Plaintiff,
v.
Lieutenant FELTON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-442 (MTT)

ORDER
Before the Court is the Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Q.
Langstaff (Doc. 75). The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant
Defendants Carlos Bernard Felton, Octavia Crawford, and Rodney Sutton’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 69). Doc. 75 at 11. The Plaintiff has objected to the
Recommendation. See generally Doc. 76. The Court has performed a de novo review
of the portions of the Recommendation to which the Plaintiff objects and adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and finds that
Defendants Felton, Crawford, and Sutton are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.1
Accordingly, the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 69) is GRANTED.

1

In his response to the motion for summary judgment, the Plaintiff seeks to “dismiss . . . without prejudice”
his claims against Defendant Felton stating that he cannot “allege actual, factual controversy of
Defendant Felton response to the altercation . . . .” Doc. 73-1 at 4. In a finding which the Court now
adopts, the Magistrate Judge interpreted this as an admission that the Plaintiff’s claim could not survive
summary judgment and found that Felton was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Doc. 75 at 4-5.
Moreover, as the Magistrate Judge points out, if the Plaintiff were allowed to “dismiss” his claims, it would
effectively be with prejudice because the two-year statute of limitations has passed.

SO ORDERED, this 5th day of June, 2017.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-