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)

Download PDF
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?