Winkels v. Morales et al

Filing 21

ORDER adopting re 13 Report and Recommendations. Therefore, Plaintiff's claims for mishandling grievances, denial of access to the courts, invasion of bodily privacy, deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, violation of the American s with Disabilities Act, and deliberate indifference through negligent hiring or supervision are DISMISSED. In addition, Defendants Morris, Clark, and ddition, Defendants Morris, Clark, and Henderson are DISMISSED from this case. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 3/29/11. (cmr)

Download PDF
-WLB Winkels v. Morales et al Doc. 21 * v AL o;sc'PcoURT MlG1iT DV. 2011 MAR 2 q A fi: 02 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA. DUBLIN DIVISION CLERK LAWRENCE WINKELS, Plaintiff, V. 4:-- CV 310M76 JOSE MORALES, Warden, et al., Defendants. ORDER After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. Therefore, Plaintiff's claims for mishandling grievances, denial of access to the courts, invasion of bodily privacy, deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and deliberate indifference through negligent hiring or supervision are DISMISSED. In addition, Defendants Morris, Clark, and Henderson are DISMISSED from this case. SO ORDERED this ay of March, 20 1,1, at Augusta, ia. Ib'IIM1II 1(.JJiI Dockets.Justia.com

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?