Opinion
Civil Action 3:21-1669
04-22-2022
CHARLES TALBERT, Plaintiff v. DEPT OF CORR., et al., Defendants
ORDER
MALACHY E. MANNION UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In accordance with this Court's memorandum issued this same day, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss all claims against Defendants Harry, Ritchy and Benning (Doc. 42) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to TERMINATE these Defendants from the above captioned action. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions directed at these Defendants (Doc. 30) is DISMISSED as moot.
2. Defendants' motions to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint (Docs. 53, 56) are GRANTED.
3. Plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint (Doc. 63) is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunctive relief (Docs. 24, 84) are DENIED.
5. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (Doc. 51) is DISMISSED as moot as Defendants filed timely responsive pleadings.
6. Plaintiff's motion to consolidate the above captioned action with his other pending actions (Doc. 59) and motion to refer case to settlement officer program (Doc. 47) are DISMISSED as moot.
7. Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendants' motions to dismiss (Doc. 72) is DENIED as meritless.
8. Plaintiff's “motion to compel disclosure statements” (Doc. 75) and motion to supplement his ADA and Eighth Amendment claims (Doc. 81) are DISMISSED as moot.
9. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
10. Any appeal will be deemed frivolous, lacking merit, and not taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3).
Plaintiff seeks to strike Defendants' motion to dismiss because “defendants filed motions to dismiss on ‘technicalities' and not the allegations themselves”. (Doc. 73). The Court finds Defendants' motion properly filed in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 12.