From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harden v. Roberts

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Valdosta Division
Sep 28, 2009
Civil Action No. 7:08-CV-63 (HL) (M.D. Ga. Sep. 28, 2009)

Summary

finding no genuine question of fact when the plaintiff could not provide evidence to show that his toe injury, which he complained of three months after the alleged use of force, was related to the use of force

Summary of this case from Butts v. Bates

Opinion

Civil Action No. 7:08-CV-63 (HL).

September 28, 2009


ORDER


Before the Court is the Recommendation (Doc. 47) entered on September 4, 2009, of United States Magistrate Judge Richard L. Hodge. The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Plaintiff Marquis Xavier Harden's claims against Defendants CO II Craft and Roberts. The Magistrate Judge also recommends granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendants Melton, Williams, Miller, Foster, and Daniels. Plaintiff Marquis Xavier Harden has not filed an objection to the Recommendation, as permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Court has reviewed the Recommendation and finds no clear error in the Magistrate Judge's decision. Accordingly, the Court accepts the Recommendation. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismissal (Doc. 27) is granted.

SO ORDERED,


Summaries of

Harden v. Roberts

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Valdosta Division
Sep 28, 2009
Civil Action No. 7:08-CV-63 (HL) (M.D. Ga. Sep. 28, 2009)

finding no genuine question of fact when the plaintiff could not provide evidence to show that his toe injury, which he complained of three months after the alleged use of force, was related to the use of force

Summary of this case from Butts v. Bates
Case details for

Harden v. Roberts

Case Details

Full title:MARQUIS XAVIER HARDEN, Plaintiff, v. STEPHEN ROBERTS, CO II WILLIAMS, CO…

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Valdosta Division

Date published: Sep 28, 2009

Citations

Civil Action No. 7:08-CV-63 (HL) (M.D. Ga. Sep. 28, 2009)

Citing Cases

Salazar v. City of Boulder

This includes affidavits attesting to injuries, which standing alone without corroborating evidence are…

Ives et al. v. Hamilton, Executor

Vance v. Campbell, supra; Gill v. Wells, supra. If an ingredient substituted for one of the ingredients in a…