WILLIAMS v. MCLAUGHLIN et al
ORDER ADOPTING 37 Report and Recommendations and GRANTING 27 Motion for Summary Judgment. This case is DISMISSED. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 3/10/2017. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MCLAUGHLIN, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-231 (MTT)
This case is before the Court on the Recommendation (Doc. 37) of United States
Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle regarding Defendants Officer Smith, Officer
Mango, Sergeant Henderson, and Unit Manager Tracey McIntyre’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 27). The Magistrate Judge recommends the motions be granted
because the Plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact.1 The Plaintiff has
not objected to the recommendation.2 The Court has reviewed the Recommendation,
In stating the standard for summary judgment, the Recommendation purports to quote the following
language: “A dispute about a material fact is genuine and summary judgment is inappropriate if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. However, there
must exist a conflict in substantial evidence to pose a jury question.” Doc. 37 at 2 (quotation marks
omitted). From the Recommendation, it is unclear whether this quote is from Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) or Verbraeken v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 881 F.2d 1041 (11th Cir. 1989).
See Id. In fact, the first sentence, although misquoted in the Recommendation, is from Anderson and the
second is from Verbraeken. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248 (“[S]ummary judgment will not lie if the dispute
about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party.”); Verbraeken, 881 F.2d at 1045 (“There must be a conflict in substantial
evidence to create a jury question.”). Regardless, the Recommendation applies the correct standard for
Although the Plaintiff did not file an objection, he did submit three filings after the entry of the
Recommendation that merely request the case be settled and recite the elements of an Eighth
Amendment claim. See Docs. 38; 39; 40. Even construing these filings liberally, the Court finds they do
not present an objection to 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. Therefore, the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 27) is
GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED, this 10th day of March, 2017.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
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?