Brooks v. Binford (INMATE 2)

Filing 6

ORDERED that:(1) The § 1983 claims presented against Defendant Binford are DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I) and (iii); (2) To the extent plaintiff's complaint presents a challen ge to the constitutionality of his current confinement, such claim is DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); (3) This case is DISMISSED prior to service of process in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii). Signed by Honorable Truman M. Hobbs on 9/10/2008. (cb, )

Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA S O U T H E R N DIVISION A N T H O N Y TERRELL BROOKS, P l a in tif f , v. H E N R Y D. (BUTCH) BINFORD, C I R C U IT JUDGE OF H O U S T O N COUNTY, D e f e n d a n t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER O n August 7, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this case to w h ic h no timely objections have been filed. (Doc. # 5). Upon an independent review of the f ile in this case and upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge be a n d is hereby ADOPTED and that: 1. T h e 1983 claims presented against Defendant Binford are DISMISSED with p reju d ice in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(I) and (iii); 2. T o the extent plaintiff's complaint presents a challenge to the constitutionality o f his current confinement, such claim is DISMISSED without prejudice under 2 8 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); C IV IL ACTION NO. 1:08cv597-TMH 3. T h is case is DISMISSED prior to service of process in accordance with the d irec tiv es of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii). D o n e this the 10th day of September, 2008. /s / Truman H. Hobbs _ _ _ _ _ _ ______________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ S E N IO R UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?