Driskell v. Jones et al (INMATE 1) (ACCEPT NO DISCOVERY), No. 2:2011cv00721 - Document 77 (M.D. Ala. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER as follows: 1. Plaintiff's 76 Objections are OVERRULED; 2. The 75 Recommendation is ADOPTED; 3. Defendants' 13 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; and 4. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A separate final judgment will be entered. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 9/25/2014. (dmn, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION CARROL JOE DRISKELL, AIS #145957, Plaintiff, v. KENNETH JONES, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2:11-CV-721-WKW ORDER On August 22, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this case. (Doc. # 75.) On September 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. # 76.) The court has conducted an independent and de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Upon consideration of the Recommendation and Plaintiff’s objections, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. # 76) are OVERRULED; 2. The Recommendation (Doc. # 75) is ADOPTED; 3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 13) is GRANTED; and 4. This case is DIMISSED with prejudice. A separate final judgment will be entered. DONE this 25th day of September, 2014. /s/ W. Keith Watkins CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
