Smith v. Houston County, Alabama et al (INMATE2)

Filing 8

ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court that: (1) the plf's 6 objection to the recommendation is overruled; (2) the 5 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Mag Judge is adopted; (3) the 1983 claims presented against defs Little and Valeska are DI SMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (iii); (4) the 1983 claims presented against defs Houston County Alabama and Hughes are DISMISSED without prejudice in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); (5) plf's challenge to the constitutionality of his pending criminal charges is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as such claim is not properly before the court at this time; (6) This case is DISMISSED prior to service of process in accordance with thedirectives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) -(iii). Signed by Honorable Truman M. Hobbs on 10/16/09. (djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA OF S O U T H E R N DIVISION D A R R IE K DEWAYNE SMITH, P l a i n t if f , v. H O U S T O N COUNTY, ALABAMA, e t al., D e f e n d a n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C A S E NO. 1:09-cv-810-TMH WO

ORDER
A f te r an independent review of the file, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE o f the court that: 1 . The plaintiff's objection (Doc. #6) to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge f ile d on September 22, 2009 is overruled; 2 . The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #5) entered on September 14, 2 0 0 9 is adopted; 3. The § 1983 claims presented against defendants Little and Valeska are

D IS M IS S E D with prejudice in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B )(i) & (iii). 4 . The § 1983 claims presented against defendants Houston County, Alabama, and H u g h e s are DISMISSED without prejudice in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 5 . Plaintiff's challenge to the constitutionality of his pending criminal charges is

D IS M IS S E D without prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) a s such claim is not properly before the court at this time. 6. This 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)(i) -(iii). D O N E this the 16th day of October, 2009.

/s/ Truman M. Hobbs SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2