WRIGHT v. CHATMAN et al
ORDER adopting 29 Report and Recommendations; granting in part and denying in part 20 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 24 Motion to Amend Complaint; denying 25 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE C ASHLEY ROYAL on 10/12/2017 (lap)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
TAMARKUS LAKEITH WRIGHT,
No. 5:16‐cv‐490 (CAR)
Warden BRUCE CHATMAN, et al.,
ORDER ON RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Currently before the Court is the Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge [Doc.29] to partially grant Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [Doc.20], to
partially grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend [Doc. 24], and to deny Plaintiff’s Motion to
Appoint Counsel [Doc.25].
Specifically, in its preliminary review of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, the
Recommendation recommends that Plaintiff’s excessive force, deliberate indifference to
medical needs, and due process claims relating to a 2012 prison riot be dismissed as
time‐barred; his tort law and deliberate indifference claims relating to a slip and fall
incident, his Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act claims, and his
access to the courts claims be dismissed as unrelated his original due process claims;
his proposed temporary restraining order be denied; and his new, additional facts and
Defendants regarding his due process claims be allowed to go forward.
Regarding Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Recommendation recommends
that all but one of Plaintiff’s due process claims be dismissed for failure to exhaust his
administrative remedies; that his official capacity claims be dismissed as barred by the
Eleventh Amendment; and that the portion of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss seeking
dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Chatman and McCloud under a
respondeat superior theory be denied, as Plaintiff asserts new allegations in his
Amended Complaint. Additionally, the Recommendation recommends that the portion
of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s individual capacity
claims as barred by qualified immunity be denied with leave to refile. Moreover, the
Recommendation recommends denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. The
Court granted Plaintiff an additional 14 days to object [Doc. 47], but Plaintiff has not
objected to the Recommendation, and the time for doing so has expired.
This Court agrees with the findings and conclusions of the Order and
Recommendation, and thus, it [Doc. 29] is ADOPTED AND MADE THE ORDER OF
THE COURT. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 20] is GRANTED‐IN‐PART AND
DENIED‐IN‐PART, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend [Doc. 24] is GRANTED‐IN‐PART
AND DENIED‐IN‐PART, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel [Doc. 25] is
SO ORDERED, this 12th day of October, 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?