Lewis v. Adams, Jr.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION

GLENN LEWIS,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:19-cv-007

v.

WARDEN ROBERT ADAMS, JR., et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER After a careful, de novo review of the entire record, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, (doc. 50), to which Plaintiff filed objections, (doc. 55).1 The Court finds Plaintiff’s objections unavailing. Plaintiff’s objections do not undermine the Magistrate Judge’s correct analysis that Plaintiff never received a determination on the merits of his grievance, and at the final level of appeal, his grievance was rejected on procedural grounds. Plaintiff’s observation of a scrivener’s error in the Hinton Declaration stating Plaintiff did not appeal to the Central Office is not dispositive because the substance of the Declaration, as well as the attached Central Office Appeal Response, shows the grievance was denied on appeal for “fail[ing] to follow proper grievance procedures.” (Doc. 41-1, pp. 2, 4.) Therefore, Plaintiff did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies, and Defendants are entitled to summary judgment. See Whatley v. Smith, 898 F.3d 1072, 1086 (11th Cir. 2018). correct Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections, ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court, and GRANTS Defendants’

1 The Court notes that Magistrate Judge Christopher L. Ray recently recused himself from this case due to the recent entry of an appearance by an attorney associated with Judge Ray’s prior law firm. (See doc. 57.) However, that Order of recusal has no bearing on the Court’s assessment of the Report and Recommendation. At the time Judge Ray issued the Report and Recommendation, no conflict existed. Moreover, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the complete record and finds the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusion entirely correct. Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 41.) Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, (doc. 12), and Motion to Amend the Complaint, (doc. 21), are likewise DENIED. The Court DIRECTS the CLERK to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal.

SO ORDERED, this 19th day of August, 2020.

fh, □□ 4 be i a de ¢ _ 7 R. STAN BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA