Thomas v. Lawson et al

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING 4 Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge as the opinion of the Court, dismissing as moot 7 Motion for Default Judgment. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to CLOSE this case and to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal. Signed by Judge Lisa G. Wood on 8/31/2017. (ca)

Download PDF
F" r I ; ~i i^n tl^e ?Emteb States; lits(trtct Court Jfor t][ie ^otttlieni 3i(sitntt of(Georgia l^apcrosisf IBtlitOton -1 p i ss !q^ THOMAS L. THOMAS, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:17-cv-8 V. KAREN LAWSON;JANET BELL; VINCENT CULLOTTA;DAVID A. BASINSKI; and J. KELLY BROOKS, Defendants. ORDER After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dkt. no. 4, to which Plaintiff filed Objections, dkt. no. 6. Plaintiff's Objections offer little more than the reiteration of the claims he set forth in his original Complaint, save his bare allegations that the Magistrate Judge acted as the Defendants' attorney in fact. Id at p. 1. The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections, as they are without merit. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court, DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint, DENIES Plaintiff's request for A0 72A (Rev. 8/82) injunctive relief, and DENIES Plaintiff in forma pauperis status on appeal. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal.^ SO ORDERED, this | day of ^ ^ , 2017. )D, JUDGE UNITEX STATES DISTRICT COURT lERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Default Judgment based on the named Defendants' failure to respond to his Complaint. Dkt. No. 7. As Defendants were not served with a copy of Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendants were under to attendant duty to respond to the allegations contained therein. Motion. Thus, the Court DISMISSES as moot Plaintiff's

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?