From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

TEAL v. BRAXTON

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
Mar 17, 2006
Civil Action No. 7:04-CV-00406 (W.D. Va. Mar. 17, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 7:04-CV-00406.

March 17, 2006


FINAL ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


Mark Anthony Teal brings this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the defendants used excessive force against him, subjected him to cruel and unusual conditions of confinement, deprived him of personal property without due process, and retaliated against him for filing grievances. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and the court referred the matter to United States Magistrate Judge Michael F. Urbanski pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) for a report and recommendation. The Magistrate Judge filed a report and recommendation, finding that Teal's claims lacked merit, recommending dismissal, and recommending the assessment of a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) against Teal because his claims are exaggerated and frivolous. Teal filed timely objections.

The court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's report, pertinent portions of the record, and Teal's objections, which are little more than a restatement of the allegations in his complaint and subsequent pleadings. It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Magistrate Judge's report be ADOPTED in its entirety, that the defendants motion to dismiss be GRANTED, that Teal's suit be DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the active docket of the court, and that Teal be assessed a STRIKE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g).

The Clerk of the Court is directed to send certified copies of this order to the plaintiff and to counsel for the defendants.


Summaries of

TEAL v. BRAXTON

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
Mar 17, 2006
Civil Action No. 7:04-CV-00406 (W.D. Va. Mar. 17, 2006)
Case details for

TEAL v. BRAXTON

Case Details

Full title:MARK ANTHONY TEAL, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN D.A. BRAXTON, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division

Date published: Mar 17, 2006

Citations

Civil Action No. 7:04-CV-00406 (W.D. Va. Mar. 17, 2006)

Citing Cases

Hill v. O'Brien

Norman, 25 F.3d at 1263. This court has found that ambulatory restraints do not constitute excessive force…