HINES v. COTTON

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION LEE HINES, Plaintiff, : v. . CASE NO.: 7:20-cv-00240-WLS-TQL ORHIANNA COTTON .

Defendant.

ORDER Before the Coutt is a recommendation of Dismissal filed by United States Magistrate Judge ‘Thomas Q. Langstaff. (Doc. 29.) Therein, Judge Langstaff recommends that Defendant Cotton’s Motion for Summaty Judgment (Doc. 18) be granted on Plaintiffs claims of □ excessive force and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. (Docs. 1; 27 at 13.) Judge Langstaff so recommends on the basis that Plaintiff has failed to rebut Defendant Cotton’s summaty judgment showing that Cotton neither used excessive force nor acted with deliberate indifference to setious medical needs. (Doc. 29 at 13.) The recommendation further finds any and all alternative claims batted by qualified immunity due to lack of constitutional violation. (Id.) For the reasons that follow, Judge Langstaff’s Recommendation (fd) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.

Judge Langstaff's Recommendation and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) provided the parties with fourteen days to file an objection (Doc. 29 at 13.). A judge of the Court shall make a de nova detetmination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendation to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); FED. R. Civ. P. 72. If no timely objection is filed, the court considers the recommendation for cleat error. Macart », Prem, Inc, 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting the Fourth Circuit and stating “Most circuits agtee that ‘[iJn the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in otder to accept the recommendation.””). To date, no objections have been filed.

Upon full review and consideration upon the record, the Court finds no clear □□□□□□ and that Judge Langstaff’s June 23, 2022 Recommendation (Doc, 29) should be, and hereby is, ACCEPTED, ADOPTED, and made the Order of this Court for the teason of the findings made and reasons stated therein. Accordingly, Defendant Cotton’s motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs claims of excessive force and deliberate indifference to setious medical needs is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall entet judgment in favor of Defendant Cotton and against Plaintiff.

SO ORDERED, thie Cay of July, 2022.

Md, W. LOUIS SANDS;SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT