Drake v. Hughes et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 7

ORDERED that the 6 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; (2) The § 1983 claims presented against Defendants Valeska, Atwell, and Davis be DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (i) and (iii); (3) Plaintiffs negligence claim be DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); (4) Plaintiffs challenge to the constitutionality of his conviction and sentence and/or pending crimina l charges be DISMISSED without prejudice pursuantto the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as such claims are notproperly before the court at this time; and (5) This case be 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 10/14/2010. (cb, )

D r a k e v. Hughes et al (INMATE 2)

Doc. 7

THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SO U T H E R N DIVISION W ILLIA M DRAKE, JR. , P l a i n t if f , v. A N D Y HUGHES, et al. , D e f e n d a n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

1 : 1 0 -C V -66 8 -ID WO

ORDER
O n September 22, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. 6) in th is case to which no timely objections have been filed. Upon an independent review of the file in this case and upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, it is ORDERED that: 1. 2. T h e Recommendation (Doc. 6) of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; T h e § 1983 claims presented against Defendants Valeska, Atwell, and Davis b e DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii); 3. P lain tiff's negligence claim be DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with th e directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); 4. P l a i n t i f f's challenge to the constitutionality of his conviction and sentence a n d /o r pending criminal charges be DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as such claims are not

Dockets.Justia.com

p ro p e rly before the court at this time; and 5. T h is case be DISMISSED prior to service of process in accordance with the d irec tives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii). D o n e this 14 th day of October, 2010.

/s/ Ira DeMent SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2