Huguley v. Lockhart et al (INMATE2), No. 3:2010cv00803 - Document 43 (M.D. Ala. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 42 beand is hereby ADOPTED and that: 1. Defendants Lockhart's, Stewart's, and Morgan's motions for summary judgment 31 , 32 are GRANTED as further set out; 2. This case against Defendants Lockhart, Stewart, and Morgan are DISMISSED with prejudice as further set out; 3. Defendant Lett's motion for summary judgment 26 is GRANTED and this case against him is DISMISSED with prejudice; 4. Judgment is ENTERED in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff; and 5. Costs are TAXED against Plaintiff for which execution may issue. Signed by Honorable Judge Truman M. Hobbs on 8/7/2013. (jg, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Huguley v. Lockhart et al (INMATE2) Doc. 43 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION COREY JERMAINE HUGULEY, Plaintiff, v. SID LOCKHART, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10cv803-TMH ORDER AND OPINION On May 28, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this case to which no timely objections have been filed. (Doc. # 42). 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. Defendants Lockhart s, Stewart s, and Morgan s motions for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 31, 32) are GRANTED to the extent these Defendants seek dismissal of this case against them due to Plaintiff's failure to properly exhaust an administrative remedy previously available to him at the Chambers County Jail; 2. This case against Defendants Lockhart, Stewart, and Morgan are DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. ยง 1997e(a) for Plaintiff's failure to exhaust an administrative remedy available to him during his confinement in the Chambers County Jail; Dockets.Justia.com 3. Defendant Lett s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 26) is GRANTED and this case against him is DISMISSED with prejudice; 4. Judgment is ENTERED in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff; and 5. Costs are TAXED against Plaintiff for which execution may issue. Done this the 7th day of August, 2013. /s/ Truman M. Hobbs ________________________________________ TRUMAN M. HOBBS SENIOR 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.
