Opinion
Case No.: 4:20cv437-MW/MAF
05-26-2021
JOHN L. NORMAN, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN MADDOX, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 55, and has also reviewed de novo Defendants' objections, ECF No. 57. Defendants take issue with the Magistrate Judge's application of law with respect to Defendants' exhaustion arguments. However, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge did not clearly err in finding that Plaintiff was not required to proceed to the second and third step of Defendant's grievance procedures and that Defendant waived its timeliness argument. See, e.g., Whatley v. Smith, 898 F.3d 1072, 1085 n.60 (11th Cir. 2018) ("A grievance can be exhausted without being appealed all the way through the grievance resolution process."); see also Q.F. v. Daniel, 768 F. App'x 935 (11th Cir. 2019) (discussing Whatley and affirming denial of motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to the PLRA). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
The report and recommendation, ECF No. 55, is accepted and adopted, over the Defendants' objections, as this Court's opinion. Defendants' motions to dismiss, ECF Nos. 44 and 48, are DENIED. This case is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED on May 26, 2021.
s/ Mark E. Walker
Chief United States District Judge