Wolf v. Rudd et al
ORDER ADOPTING 30 Report and Recommendations. Pltf may proceed with his claim for denial of access to medical care against deft Allison. Pltf's remaining claims against defts Rudd, Linthicum, Murray, Deshields and Sapp are DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Leonard Davis on 09/06/11. cc:attys 9-06-11(mll, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DAVID PAUL WOLF, #468145
REBECCA RUDD, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:10cv381
ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL
Plaintiff David Paul Wolf, a prisoner confined in the Texas prison system, proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining of the
medical treatment he has received or been denied during his confinement. The lawsuit was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love, who issued a Report and Recommendation (docket
entry #30) concerning the disposition of the lawsuit. The Plaintiff has filed objections (docket entry
The Report of the Magistrate Judge, which contains 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, the Court is of the opinion that the
findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the objections by the Plaintiff are
without merit. Therefore, the Court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate
Judge as the findings and conclusions of the Court. It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Plaintiff may proceed with his for denial of access to medical care
against Defendant Allison. It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s remaining claims against Defendants Rudd, Linthicum,
Murray, Deshields and Sapp are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 6th day of September, 2011.
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?