Ray v. City of Gulfport Police Department et al

Filing 61

ORDER Adopting 56 Report and Recommendation and granting 48 Motion to Dismiss filed by Allen [Alan] Weatherford. Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 7/24/2012. (Brown, T.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GARRETT EUGENE RAY
VERSUS

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10-cv-572-HSO-JMR

ADAM GIBBONS & ALLEN1 WEATHERFORD

DEFENDANTS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO
GRANT DEFENDANT ALAN WEATHERFORD’S MOTION TO DISMISS
This cause comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [56] of
Chief United States Magistrate Judge John M. Roper entered in this cause on May 14,
2012. Magistrate Roper reviewed the pleadings on file and determined that based on
the record, Defendant Alan Weatherford’s Motion to Dismiss [48] should be granted. To
date, no objection to the Report and Recommendation has been filed by Plaintiff.2 The
Court has thoroughly reviewed the findings in the Report and Recommendation, the
record, and the positions advanced in the Motion, and Plaintiff’s Response3, and
concludes that the Magistrate Judge properly recommended that Defendant’s Motion be
granted pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12.
Where no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of it. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) (“a judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of

1

Pursuant to Plaintiff’s Complaint, the docket reflects the name of Defendant as
“Allen” Weatherford. The Court notes that the correct spelling is Alan Weatherford,
and that spelling is used in this Order.
2

The docket reflects that the Report and Recommendation was signed for on
May 16, 2012 [57].
3

1, 2011.

Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion [50] on December

the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is
made.”). In such cases, the Court need only review the Report and Recommendation
and determine whether it is either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Longmire v.
Guste, 921 F.2d 620, 623 (5th Cir. 1991) (citing United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219,
1221 (5th Cir. 1989)).
Having conducted the required review, the Court finds that the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation thoroughly considered all issues, and is neither
clearly erroneous, nor contrary to law. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge
properly recommended that Defendant Alan Weatherford’s Motion to Dismiss, filed
pursuant FED. R. CIV. P. 12, should be granted, and that Defendant Alan Weatherford
should be dismissed with prejudice as a Defendant.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, the Report and
Recommendation [56] of Chief Magistrate Judge John M. Roper entered on May 14,
2012, is adopted as the finding of this Court.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, Defendant Alan
Weatherford’s Motion to Dismiss [48] filed November 17, 2011, is GRANTED, and
Defendant Alan Weatherford is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, as a Defendant
from the above captioned cause.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 24th day of July, 2012.

s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden
HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-