Opinion
4:22cv69-MW/MAF
09-21-2022
BRIAN M. CASEY, Plaintiff, v. COLONEL PROCTOR, et al.,[1] Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Mark E. Walker, Chief United States District Judge.
This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 73, and has also reviewed de novo Plaintiff's objections, ECF No. 74. One point requires only minor clarification; namely, one of the Magistrate Judge's conclusions is that the Department of Corrections is not a Defendant in this case, thus an order direction “F.D.O.C.” to take certain actions is not permissible. ECF No. 73 at 8. However, Plaintiff points out that he has sued Defendants, including Assistant Warden Dicks, in their official capacities as well as their individual capacities. ECF No. 74 at 2. Thus, Plaintiff argues, Plaintiff's claims encompass “a lawsuit against the agency.” Id. Plaintiff is correct in asserting the general principle that “[a] suit against a state officer, employee, or agent in his official capacity is a suit against the employing entity.” Garcia v. Leavins, Case No.: 3:21cv514-LC/HTC, 2021 WL 3476623, *4 (N.D. Fla. June 25, 2021) (citing Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985)). However, this does not undermine the Magistrate Judge's additional reasons for recommending that Plaintiff's third motion for preliminary injunction should be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
The report and recommendation, ECF No. 73, is accepted and adopted, over the Plaintiff's objections, as this Court's opinion, along with the clarification identified above. Plaintiff's third motion for preliminary injunction, ECF No. 70, is DENIED. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this Order.
SO ORDERED.