TERRELL v. DAVIS
Filing
22
ORDER ADOPTING 11 Report and Recommendations. Terrell's Eighth Amendment medical indifference claims against Defendants Kitchens and Dixon shall proceed for further factual development. Terrell's remaining claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 4/26/2018. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
WILLIE JAMES TERRELL, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICIA DENIESE DAVIS, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-CV-441 (MTT)
ORDER
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and § 1915(e), United States Magistrate Judge
Charles H. Weigle has conducted a screening of Plaintiff Willie James Terrell, Jr.’s
complaint. Doc. 11. The Magistrate Judge recommends that Terrell’s Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs claims against Defendants
Kitchens and Dixon should proceed for further factual development. Id. at 9. However,
the Magistrate Judge recommends that Terrell’s claims against Defendants Smith,
Hodge, Davis, West, Carr, Clarkson (or Clarkston), Jefferson, Bell, and Mercer be
dismissed. Id. at 10-11. Further, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Terrell’s First
Amendment retaliation, Eighth amendment failure to intervene, and Fourteenth
Amendment due process claims be dismissed. Id. at 11. Terrell has not objected to the
Recommendation. The Court has reviewed the Recommendation and adopts the
proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, the Recommendation (Doc. 11) is ADOPTED and made the order of this
Court. Terrell’s Eighth Amendment medical indifference claims against Defendants
Kitchens and Dixon shall proceed for further factual development. Terrell’s remaining
claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED, this 26th day of April, 2018.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
-2-
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?