Johnson v. State of Alabama et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 11

ORDER directing that 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 9 SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED as follows: (1) The Magistrate Judge's June 17, 2010 5 Recommendation is ADOPTED; (2) Plaintiff's claims brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-243 and 1621-1623 are DISMISSED prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); (3) Plaintiff's claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985 with respect to events which occurred on or before Septemb er 28, 2005, June 13, 2006, and August 26-30, 2007, are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as Plaintiff failed to file the complaint with regard to these allegations within the time prescribed by the applicable period of limitation; and a separate judgment shall issue. Signed by Honorable Truman M. Hobbs on 9/28/10. (scn, )

Johnson v. State of Alabama et al (INMATE 2)

Doc. 11

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION DAVID LAMAR JOHNSON, #255052, P la in ti ff , v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO. 2:10-cv-401TMH

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., Defendants.

O RDER The Magistrate Judge entered a Supplemental Recommendation (Doc. #9) 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 SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATION (Doc. #9) of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge's June 17, 2010, Recommendation (Doc. #5) is A DO PT ED ; 2. Plaintiff's claims brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-243 and 1621-1623 are DISMISSED prior to service of process pursuant

Dockets.Justia.com

to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 3. Plaintiff's claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985 with respect to events which occurred on or before September 28, 2005, June 13, 2006, and August 26-30, 2007, are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as Plaintiff failed to file the complaint with regard to these allegations within the time prescribed by the applicable period of limitation; and
A separate judgment shall issue. D o n e this 28 th day of September, 2010. /s / Truman M. Hobbs U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2