Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Garrett v. Carter

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Albany Division

January 12, 2015

STANLEY ACUFF GARRETT, Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN ALAN CARTER, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

W. LOUIS SANDS, Senior District Judge.

Presently pending before the Court is a Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff filed October 24, 2014. (Doc. 5.) Therein, Judge Langstaff recommends dismissing Plaintiff Stanley Acuff Garrett's Fourteenth Amendment claims, and claim against Defendant Carter. ( See id. at 4-6.) Judge Langstaff recommends allowing Garrett's Fourth and Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Doe, Hendrix, Griffen, and Shores, and failure to intervene claims against Defendants Jefferson and Nobles to proceed. ( See id. ) The Recommendation provided Garrett with fourteen days to file an objection. That time period elapsed on November 7, 2014, but Garrett filed an Objection on November 17, 2014. (Doc. 9.) Even with the benefit of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d), referred to as the mailbox rule, Garrett's Objection was untimely and is therefore OVERRULED.[1]

The Court agrees with Judge Langstaff's Recommendation to dismiss Defendant Carter. Supervisory liability exists under Section 1983 only where the official personally participated in the alleged constitutional deprivation, or some causal connection exists between the official and the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Keating v. City of Miami, 598 F.3d 753, 764 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Dalrymple v. Reno, 334 F.3d 991, 996 (11th Cir. 2003)). Also, the Court agrees with Judge Langstaff's Recommendation to dismiss Garrett's Fourteenth Amendment claims. See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 327 (1986). In any event, Garrett has indicated his agreement that his Fourteenth Amendment claims should be dismissed. ( See Doc. 9.)

Upon full review and consideration of the record, the Court finds that Judge Lang-staff's Recommendation (Doc. 5) should be, and hereby is, ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and made the Order of this Court for reason of the findings made and reasons stated therein, together with the findings made and conclusions reached herein.

SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.