Washington v. Adams et al, No. 5:2019cv00073 - Document 42 (E.D. Ky. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. U.S. Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram's 41 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION is ACCEPETED and ADOPTED in its entirety as the Opinion of the Court; 2. Defendant's 37 MOTION to Dism iss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; 3. This action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court's docket; 4 No certificate of appealability shall issue; and 5. Judgment shall be entered contemporaneously with the present Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 4/6/2021.(KM)cc: COR and Carroll Washington by US Mail
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Washington v. Adams et al Doc. 42 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON CARROLL WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Case No. 5:19-cv-73-JMH-HAI MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER *** This matter comes before the Court on the United States’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. [DE 37]. Following the partial dismissal of several claims, the Court allowed Plaintiff Carroll Washington’s medical negligence claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) to move forward. [DE 23]. This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram for further scrutiny, and he has recommended granting the United States’ motion and dismissal of the Washington’s remaining claim. [DE 41]. Although afforded the opportunity to do so, Washington has failed to object to Magistrate Judge Ingram’s Report and Recommendation [DE 41]. As stated in Magistrate Judge Smith’s Report and Recommendation [DE 41], “Failure to make a timely objection consistent with [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)] and rule may, and normally will, result in waiver of further appeal to or review by the District Court and 1 Dockets.Justia.com Court of Appeals.” [DE 41, at 8 (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 950 (6th Cir. 1981)]. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows: (1) United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram’s Report and Recommendation [DE 41] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety as the Opinion of the Court; (2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 37] is GRANTED; (3) This action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court’s docket; (4) No certificate of appealability shall issue; and (5) Judgment shall be entered contemporaneously with the present Memorandum Opinion and Order. This the 6th day of April, 2021. 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.
