HUMPHREY v. HEAD et al

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING 24 Report and Recommendations and GRANTING 14 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 11/18/2015. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
JOSHUA HUMPHREY,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARLON GRIFFITH,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-73 (MTT)

ORDER
United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle recommends granting
Defendant Marlon Griffith’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 14) because the Plaintiff failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies. (Doc. 24). The Plaintiff has not objected to the
Recommendation.1 The Court has reviewed the Recommendation, and 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 Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 14) is GRANTED, and the
Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED, this 18th day of November, 2015.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1
The docket reflects that the clerk mailed the Recommendation to the Plaintiff on September
25, 2015. On September 29, 2015, the Plaintiff wrote in a letter to the clerk that he had not
received anything from the Court or the Defendant’s attorney since June 16, 2015. (Doc. 25). It
is not surprising that the Plaintiff would not have received the Recommendation by September
29. In any event, in response to the Plaintiff’s letter, the clerk mailed the Plaintiff a copy of the
Court’s docket, which included a docket entry of the filing of the Recommendation.
Notwithstanding the lack of an objection, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the
Recommendation.