Loftin v. Banks et al

Filing 21

ORDER granting 17 Motion to Dismiss; adopting Report and Recommendations as the opinion of this Court re 19 Report and Recommendations. Ordered that all of Plaintiff's claims are dismissed. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. on 4/27/17. (RLW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BERNALDO PARZYNSKI LOFTIN
v.

PLAINTIFF
1:16cv334-LG-RHW

JACQUELINE BANKS, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This cause comes before the Court on the [19] Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker. On September 12, 2016,
Plaintiff Barnaldo Parzynski Loftin filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against multiple defendants alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights
while an inmate at the South Mississippi Correctional Institution. On November
22, 2016, Defendant Dr. Ronald Woodall filed a [17] Motion to Dismiss based on
Plaintiff’s purported failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Plaintiff never
responded to the Motion, and the time for doing so has long expired.
On March 17, 2017, Magistrate Judge Walker recommended that this Court
grant the Motion to Dismiss because Plaintiff admittedly failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies. (See Rep. & Rec. 4, ECF No. 19). Judge Walker further
stated: “Because Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust requires dismissal of all his claims,
the undersigned recommends that the case be dismissed in its entirety as to all
Defendants.” (Id.).
Plaintiff has not timely objected to any aspect of the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation. Where no party has objected to the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review
of it. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of 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. See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221
(5th Cir. 1989).
Having conducted the required review, the Court is of the opinion that
Magistrate Judge Walker’s Report and Recommendation is neither clearly
erroneous nor contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court finds that the [19] Report
and Recommendation should be adopted as the opinion of this Court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that [17] Motion to
Dismiss is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that all of Plaintiff’s
claims are DISMISSED. A separate Final Judgment will be entered.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 27th day of April, 2017.
s/

Louis Guirola, Jr.

Louis Guirola, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge

2