From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Richardson v. Peavy

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division
Jan 19, 2011
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-CV-33 (MTT) (M.D. Ga. Jan. 19, 2011)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-CV-33 (MTT).

January 19, 2011


ORDER


This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation to Grant (the "Recommendation") (Doc. 28) of United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle. The Magistrate Judge, having reviewed Defendant Deborah Futch's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 22), recommends granting the motion on the Plaintiff's claims against Futch because there is no evidence that the Plaintiff's toothache was a serious medical need or that Futch acted with deliberate indifference. Defendant Sheriff Van Peavy also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 24). The Magistrate Judge recommends granting the motion on the claims against Peavy because a supervisor can only be held liable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if he personally participated in the constitutional violation and the Plaintiff failed to present evidence that Peavy personally participated in the alleged unconstitutional conduct. The Plaintiff did not file an objection to the Recommendation.

The Court has reviewed the Recommendation, and the Recommendation is adopted and made the Order of this Court. Both Motions for Summary Judgment (Docs. 22 24) are GRANTED. SO ORDERED, this the 19th day of January, 2011.


Summaries of

Richardson v. Peavy

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division
Jan 19, 2011
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-CV-33 (MTT) (M.D. Ga. Jan. 19, 2011)
Case details for

Richardson v. Peavy

Case Details

Full title:Paul RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, v. SHERIFF Van PEAVY, et. al, Defendants

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

Date published: Jan 19, 2011

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-CV-33 (MTT) (M.D. Ga. Jan. 19, 2011)