PARKER v. DAVIS et al
ORDER adopting 85 Report and Recommendations and granting 60 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 66 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 69 Motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE C ASHLEY ROYAL on 3/31/2017 (lap)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
LEE McDANIEL PARKER,
Proceedings Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sheriff DAVID DAVIS, et al.,
ORDER ON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation [Doc. 85] to grant Defendants Davis, Reece, Harmond, Nation,
Barnes, Fair, James, Street, and Digby’s Motions for Summary Judgment [Docs. 60, 66,
69]. On March 20, 2017, Plaintiff requested a 21‐day extension of time to object. The
Court ordered Plaintiff to file any objection by March 28, 2017. Although Plaintiff has
not filed a formal objection to the Report and Recommendation, out of an abundance of
caution, the Court construes Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time as an Objection
and thus considers this case de novo. Having done so, the Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions. Accordingly, the Report and
Recommendation [Doc. 85] is HEREBY ADOPTED AND MADE THE ORDER OF
THE COURT; and Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment [Docs. 60, 66, 69] are
GRANTED. Thus, Defendants Davis, Reece, Harmond, Nation, Barnes, Fair, James,
Street, and Digby are DISMISSED from this action.
SO ORDERED, this 31st day of March, 2017.
S/ C. Ashley Royal
C. ASHLEY ROYAL, SENIOR 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?