MARLIN v. ANDREWS et al

5:24-cv-00483Gamd12 de fev. de 2026

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
EUGENE MARLIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. ANDREWS, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 5:24-cv-483-TES-ALS
ORDER ADOPTING THE UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) [Doc. 44] to deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 16].
The parties have not filed a timely objection or sought an extension of time to file an
objection within the 14-day period outlined in the magistrate judge’s R&R. [Doc. 44 at p.
4]. Thus, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), in
connection with Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1) & (d).
Having considered the R&R, the Court finds no clear enumeration of error and
agrees with the findings and conclusions of the United States Magistrate Judge.
Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the United States Magistrate Judge’s R&R [Doc. 44] and
MAKES IT THE ORDER OF THE COURT. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 16].
Case 5:24-cv-00483-TES-ALS Document 47 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 2
2
SO ORDERED, this 12th day of February, 2026.
S/ Tilman E. Self, III
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 5:24-cv-00483-TES-ALS Document 47 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 2

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.