From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Walker v. Walker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION
Aug 21, 2012
Civil Action No. 5:11-cv-360 (CAR) (M.D. Ga. Aug. 21, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 5:11-cv-360 (CAR)

08-21-2012

PATRICK WALKER, Plaintiff, v. Warden VICTOR WALKER, Medical Director INE AKUMWANNE, and Medical Administrator VERNON SPIKE, Defendants.


ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Currently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [Doc. 23] that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be granted. Plaintiff has filed an Objection to the Recommendation [Doc. 24]. Upon a de novo review of the Complaint, the Recommendation, Plaintiff's objections, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court agrees with the reasoning and findings of the Magistrate Judge in his Report and Recommendation. In his Objection, Plaintiff simply restates arguments that have been thoroughly addressed in the Report and Recommendation. This Court agrees that Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Thus, the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 23] is hereby ADOPTED AND MADE THE ORDER OF THE COURT. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel [Doc. 11] is MOOT, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 15] is GRANTED, and this case is hereby dismissed.

____________

C. ASHLEY ROYAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SSH


Summaries of

Walker v. Walker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION
Aug 21, 2012
Civil Action No. 5:11-cv-360 (CAR) (M.D. Ga. Aug. 21, 2012)
Case details for

Walker v. Walker

Case Details

Full title:PATRICK WALKER, Plaintiff, v. Warden VICTOR WALKER, Medical Director INE…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

Date published: Aug 21, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No. 5:11-cv-360 (CAR) (M.D. Ga. Aug. 21, 2012)

Citing Cases

Tidwell v. Parr

Again, while Badillo is not binding precedent, this court finds it persuasive, as have three other district…