Winding v. Pilkinton et al

Filing 108

ORDER denying 35 Motion ; denying 36 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 46 Motion for Extension of Time to File; denying 52 Motion to Compel; denying 53 Motion to Compel; denying 54 Motion to Compel; denying 56 Motion for Summary Judg ment; denying 57 Motion to Continue; denying 60 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 61 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 63 Motion to Compel; denying 64 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 65 Motion for Order to Show Cause; adopting Report a nd Recommendations re 70 Report and Recommendations.; denying 71 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 72 Motion to Compel; denying 74 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 75 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 76 Motion ; denying 77 Motion ; d enying 78 Motion ; denying 79 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 80 Motion for Contempt; denying 81 Motion for Default Judgment; granting 82 Motion ; denying 83 Motion ; denying 84 Motion ; denying 89 Motion ; denying 90 Motion for Or der to Show Cause; denying 91 Motion to Amend/Correct; entered 92 Motion to Strike ; denying 93 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 94 Motion ; denying 95 Motion ; denying 98 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 99 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 103 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 104 Motion Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 3/19/2012 (VB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION
JAMES C. WINDING
VS.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:10cv153-CWR-FKB

Dr. J.C. PILKINTON

DEFENDANTS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation
of United States Magistrate Judge Keith Ball entered sua sponte on August 9, 2011, dismissing
Plaintiff’s Complaint having considered Plaintiff’s allegations and receiving Plaintiff’s testimony
at an omnibus hearing. Having considered said Report and Recommendation, the Plaintiff’s
objections thereto, applicable statutory and case law, and being otherwise fully advised in the
premises, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ objection is without merit and hereby adopts, as its
own opinion, the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge.
Based on the foregoing, it is ordered that the report and recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball entered on August 9, 2011, and the same is hereby, adopted as the
finding of this Court. The Complaint in this matter shall be dismissed with prejudice. All other
pending motions are denied.
Because this case is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), it will be counted
as a “strike” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
SO ORDERED, this the 19th day of March, 2012.

s/Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE