CHOYCE v. GROUNDS et al
Filing
45
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 41 Report and Recommendations, granting 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Adam Velez, Claire T Russell, Reginaldo F Stanely, Tonya Traylor. Signed by Judge David Folsom on 7/18/11. (mrm, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
CHARLES RICKY CHOYCE, JR., #690391 §
VS.
§
ADAM VELEZ, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10cv181
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Charles Ricky Choyce, Jr., an inmate confined at the Telford Unit of the Texas
prison system, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled and numbered civil rights lawsuit. The
complaint was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Caroline M. Craven, who issued a Report
and Recommendation concluding that the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment should be
granted. The Plaintiff has filed objections.
The Report of the Magistrate Judge, which contains her proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for the disposition of such action, has been presented for consideration, and having
made a de novo review of the objections raised by the Plaintiff to the Report, the Court is of the
opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the objections of
the Plaintiff are without merit. Therefore the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are
adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Court. It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (docket entry #28) is
GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
It is further
1
.
ORDERED that all motions by either party not previously ruled on are hereby DENIED.
SIGNED this 18th day of July, 2011.
____________________________________
DAVID FOLSOM
UNITED STATES 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?