McNally v. Inch et al
Filing
57
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 46 ; granting in part and denying in part 30 Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 3/29/2019. (DJ)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
JAMES ANTHONY MCNALLY
V.
PLAINTIFF
CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-847-CWR-JCG
DIRECTOR B.O.P. MARK INCH, et al.
DEFENDANTS
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge, which was entered on February 7, 2019. Docket No. 46. The Report and
Recommendation clearly notified the parties that failure to file written objections to the findings
and recommendations contained therein within 14 days after service would bar further appeal in
accordance with Local Rule 72. Id.; see 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The
Government filed notice of no objection on February 21, 2019. Docket No. 50.
This Court, finding that there has been no submission of written objections by any party,
hereby adopts said Report and Recommendation as the Order of this Court. Accordingly,
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 30) is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Eight Amendment claims against Director
Inch and Regional Director Inch are dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The Eight Amendment claims against Dr. Chambers, Warden Nash, Dr. Natal are dismissed with
prejudice. The Plaintiff shall have 90 days from the entry of this Order to file an amended
Complaint to advance a claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act
(FTCA). 28 U.S.C. § 2672 et seq.
SO ORDERED, this the 29th day of March, 2019.
s/ Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?