From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Perry

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION
Oct 27, 2016
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15CV397-RHW (S.D. Miss. Oct. 27, 2016)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15CV397-RHW

10-27-2016

RANDY C. WILLIAMS PLAINTIFF v. GLORIA PERRY et al DEFENDANTS


FINAL JUDGMENT

In accordance with the requirement for filing a separate document pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a), and based on the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendants' motions to dismiss, the Court hereby enters its Final Judgment in the above-captioned matter. The Court finds that, by agreement of the parties, Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed with prejudice as to Defendants Gloria Perry and Mike Hatten. The Court further finds that Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed with prejudice as to Defendants Ronald E. Woodall, Karen Deese, and Melanie Byrd for failure to state a constitutional claim. The dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim shall count as a strike. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff is cautioned that if he acquires three or more strikes, he shall be barred from proceeding IFP unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to all claims and all defendants.

SO ORDERED, this the 27th day of October, 2016.

/s/_________

ROBERT H. WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Williams v. Perry

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION
Oct 27, 2016
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15CV397-RHW (S.D. Miss. Oct. 27, 2016)
Case details for

Williams v. Perry

Case Details

Full title:RANDY C. WILLIAMS PLAINTIFF v. GLORIA PERRY et al DEFENDANTS

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Oct 27, 2016

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15CV397-RHW (S.D. Miss. Oct. 27, 2016)