BOWMAN v. OWENS et al
Filing
17
ORDER ADOPTING 12 Report and Recommendations and DENYING 9 Motion for TRO. The claims specified in the Recommendation against Defendants Darisol, Warren, Winters, Owens, Reed, Crickmar, and Jacobs will be allowed to go forward. All other claims and Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 6/4/2015. (tlh)
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
CEASAR J. BOWMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Commissioner BRIAN OWENS, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-67 (MTT)
ORDER
Before the Court is the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Stephen Hyles.
(Doc. 12). After screening the Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a), the Magistrate Judge recommends allowing certain claims against
Defendants Darisol, Warren, Winters, Owens, Reed, Crickmar, and Jacobs to go
forward but recommends dismissing all other claims and defendants for failure to state a
claim. Further, the Magistrate Judge recommends denying the Plaintiff’s motion for a
temporary restraining order. (Doc. 9). The Plaintiff has objected to the
Recommendation. (Doc. 16). The Court has reviewed the objection and has made a
de novo determination of the portions of the Recommendation to which the Plaintiff
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 claims specified in the Recommendation against
Defendants Darisol, Warren, Winters, Owens, Reed, Crickmar, and Jacobs will be
allowed to go forward. All other claims and Defendants are DISMISSED without
prejudice. The Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 9) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 4th day of June, 2015.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL
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?