Waters v. Georgia Department of Corrections et al

Filing 94

ORDER adopting 90 Report and Recommendations, dismissing Plaintiff's Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against Defendant GDOC, official capacity claims against O'Neal, Poss, Scott, Alexander Taylor, Antonio Taylor, Lorge, and Mason, and claims regarding his treatment at BSP, and denying Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction. The Court overrules Plaintiff's 89 objections. Defendants shall have fourteen days following the entry of this Order within which to answer, move, or otherwise plead to Plaintiff's amended complaint. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 07/20/2018. (thb) Modified on 7/20/2018 (thb).

Download PDF
U.S. DISTRICT COURT AUGUSTA OiV. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2013JUL2O ftH9--29 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA DUBLIN DIVISION WILLIE WATERS, Plaintiff, CV 316-076 V. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; WESLEY O'NEAL, Correctional Unit Manager; JOSEPH POSS, Correctional Officer; JOSEPH SCOTT, Correctional Officer; ANTONIO TAYLOR, Correctional Officer; ALEXANDER TAYLOR,Correctional Officer; ELLIS LORGE,Correctional Officer; and JAMES MASON,Correctional Officer, Defendants. ORDER After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), to which objections have been filed. (Doc. no. 93.) Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion, DISMISSES Plaintiffs Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against Defendant GDOC, official capacity claims against O'Neal, Poss, Scott, Alexander Taylor, Antonio Taylor, Lorge, and Mason, and claims regarding his treatment at BSP, and DENIES Plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff also objects to the Magistrate Judge's June 26, 2018 Order, (doc. no. 89), staying the deadline for Defendants to answer Plaintiffs amended complaint until after the Court takes final action on the R&R and ordering Defendants to file a response to the amended complaint within fourteen days of such action. (Id at 1-2.) Plaintiff expresses concern Defendants will file a motion for summary judgment before the Court rules on Plaintiffs pending motion to compel, which will prejudice his ability to respond. (Id at 2.) Plaintiffs concerns are unfounded. Following the filing of the first answer of a Defendant, the Court will enter a revised scheduling order reopening the discovery period and providing a new motions deadline. Furthermore, the Court will not rule on any potentially forthcoming motion for summary judgment without first resolving any discovery disputes between the parties. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections to the June 26th Order. (Doc. no. 89.) Defendants shall have fourteen days following entry of this Order within which to answer, move, or otherwise plead to Plaintiffs amended complaint. After the filing of the first answer of a Defendant, the Court will enter a revised scheduling order setting new case deadlines. ■is so ORDERED this day of July, 2018, at Augusta, Georgia. UNITED STATES/DISTRICT JUDGE

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?