Montgomery v. W.C.C.R.C.F., et al
Filing
40
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 36 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 12/26/2013. (dlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
STANLEY MONTGOMERY
vs.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:12CV73-SA-SAA
TIM PALMER, et al.
DEFENDANTS
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Upon consideration of the file and records in this action, including the Report and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge dated September 6, 2013, and the
September 12, 2013, response thereto, the Court finds as follows:
The plaintiff’s response to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation fails to
challenge the Magistrate Judge’s findings of fact or conclusions of law. Rather, in his response,
the plaintiff complains that the Winston-Choctaw County Regional Correctional Facility refuses
to provide him with legal postage, which he needs to mail two complaints to the Court for filing.
If the plaintiff wishes to pursue a claim that his right to access the courts is being denied by
prison officials, he will need to do so in a separate § 1983 suit. His objections, such as they are,
are without merit to the instant action, and the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation should be approved and adopted as the opinion of the Court.
It is, therefore, ORDERED:
1. That the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge dated
September 6, 2013, is hereby APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
2. That the instant case is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice for the plaintiff’s failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
1
3. That this case is CLOSED.
4. That a final judgment consistent with this Order will enter today.
THIS, the 26th day of September, 2013.
/s/ Sharion Aycock
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
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?