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, )

Download PDF
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

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?