Mitchell v. Rouse, et al (INMATE 1), No. 2:2011cv01101 - Document 40 (M.D. Ala. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION: It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the 39 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge be and is hereby ADOPTED and that: 1. The defendants motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. 2. Judgment is GRANTED in favor of the defendants. 3. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 4. The costs of this proceeding are taxed against the plaintiff. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 3/2/2015. (dmn, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Mitchell v. Rouse, et al (INMATE 1) Doc. 40 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION JERMAINE MITCHELL, #205893, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROUSE, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11cv1101-WHA ORDER AND OPINION On February 9, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this case to which no timely objections have been filed. (Doc. # 39). Upon an independent review of the file in this case and upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge be and is hereby ADOPTED and that: 1. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. 2. Judgment is GRANTED in favor of the defendants. 3. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 4. The costs of this proceeding are taxed against the plaintiff. Done this the 2nd day of March, 2015. /s/ W. Harold Albritton SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
