Floyd v. Williams

Filing 16

ORDER adopting the 11 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court; overruling Plaintiff's 15 Objections; dismissing Plaintiff's claims for monetary relief against Defendant in his official capacity; dis missing all claims for monetary relief under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act; dismissing all claims for compensatory and punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983; additionally, denying Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction; and determining that Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief and nominal damages under Section 1983 shall proceed. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 2/8/2016. (jah)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION EDDIE FRANK FLOYD, III, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:15-cv-103 v. WARDEN DOUG WILLIAMS, Defendant. ORDER After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, (doc. 11), to which Objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted as the opinionof the Court, and Plaintiffs Objections, (doc. 15), are OVERRULED. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs claims for monetary relief against Defendant in his official capacity, DISMISSES all claims for monetary reliefunder the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), and DISMISSES all claims for compensatory and punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. Additionally, Court DENIES Plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief under the RLUIPA and for injunctive relief and nominal damages under Section 1983 shall proceed. SO ORDERED, this % day of February, 2016. rLE J. RANDAL HALL ATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

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?