HAMILTON v. JESTER et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
STANLEY L HAMILTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
Warden TEKETA JESTER, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
5:24-cv-00186-TES-CHW
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation [Doc. 21]. Plaintiff Stanley Hamilton did not object to the
Recommendation in the allotted time.1 [Id. at p. 9]. So, after reviewing it for clear error, the
Court ADOPTS it and MAKES IT THE ORDER OF THE COURT. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
6(a)(1) and (d); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The magistrate judge recommended the Court grant
Defendant Smith’s Motion for Summary Judgment. [Doc. 17]; [Doc. 21, p. 9]. Accordingly,
the Court GRANTS Defendant Smith’s Motion for Summary Judgment. [Doc. 17].
SO ORDERED, this 31st day of December, 2025.
S/ Tilman E. Self, III
TILMAN E. SELF, III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 The Court sent the Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff’s first address, and then to the address
listed on his change of address. See [Doc. 20]; [Doc. 22]. The mail was returned as undeliverable to the first
address. [Doc. 22]. The Report was not returned as undeliverable to the second address, and no objection
was received. This is consistent with Plaintiff’s previous behavior in this case when he did not object to
the Report and Recommendation from 2024. [Doc. 9]; [Doc. 10].
Case 5:24-cv-00186-TES-CHW Document 23 Filed 12/31/25 Page 1 of 1