Opinion
4:22-cv-00788-KGB
07-09-2024
MATTHEW ROBERTS ADC #161985 PLAINTIFF v. JOHN STALEY, et al DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Kristine G. Baker Chief United States District Judge
Before the Court are the Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney (Dkt. No. 19). Judge Kearney recommends that plaintiff Matthew Roberts' claims against defendants Kristie Flud, Kevin McCoy, and Chad Merritt be dismissed without prejudice for lack of service (Id., at 3). Mr. Roberts filed objections in which he states that he agrees that his claims against Mr. McCoy should be dismissed (Dkt. No. 20, at 1). Mr. Roberts argues that his claims against Ms. Flud and Mr. Merritt should not be dismissed but provides no reason in support of his position other than the fact that he cannot find valid services addresses for them (Id., at 2). Mr. Roberts moved the Court to appoint counsel to assist him with this issue (Dkt. No. 21). Judge Kearney denied the motion (Dkt. No. 22). As of the date of this Order, these defendants have still not been served. Upon a de novo review of the record, including the Proposed Findings and Recommendations and Mr. Roberts' objections, the Court finds that Mr. Roberts' objections break no new ground and fail to rebut the Proposed Findings and Recommendations. Thus, the Court agrees with the Proposed Findings and Recommendations and adopts them as its findings in their entirety (Dkt. No. 19).
Also before the Court are the Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney (Dkt. No. 45). Mr. Roberts has not filed any objections to these Proposed Findings and Recommendations, and the time to file objections has passed. Accordingly, after careful consideration, the Court approves and adopts these Proposed Findings and Recommendations in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects (Id.).
For these reasons, as well as the reasons explained in Judge Kearney's Proposed Findings and Recommendations (Dkt. Nos. 19; 45), it is ordered that:
1. Mr. Roberts' motion to correct complaint is denied (Dkt. No. 41).
2. Defendant John Staley's motion for Summary Judgment is granted (Dkt. No. 31).
3. Mr. Roberts' claims against Mr. Staley are dismissed with prejudice.
4. Mr. Roberts claims against Ms. Flud, Mr. McCoy, and Mr. Merritt are dismissed without prejudice.
It is so ordered.