Carter v. Gordon (INMATE2)

Filing 5

ORDER adopting 4 Report and Recommendations; that Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against Defendants Dothan Police Department, Houston County Sheriff's Department, and Judge Rose Gordon are DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with 28 U. S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii); that Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against Defendant Dothan Police Chief are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); that Plaintiff's challenge to the constitution ality of his current detention 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; that this case is DISMISSED prior to service of process in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) - (iii). Signed by Honorable Ira De Ment on 9/28/2009. (cc, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION MOSES CARTER, JR., Plaintiff, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER The Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation (Doc. #4) in this case to which no timely objections have been filed. After a review of the Recommendation, and after an independent review of the entire record, the Court believes that the Recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the RECOMMENDATION (Doc. #4) of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED as follows: a. Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against Defendants Dothan Police Department, Houston County Sheriff's Department, and Judge Rose Gordon are DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii); b. P laintiff's § 1983 claims against Defendant Dothan Police Chief are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii);

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-813-ID [WO]

CITY POLICE FOR DOTHAN, et al., Defendants.

c.

Plaintiff's challenge to the constitutionality of his current detention 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; and

d.

This case is DISMISSED prior to service of process in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) - (iii).

D o n e this 28 th day of September, 2009.

/s/ Ira DeMent SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2