Pressley v. Hughes, et al (INMATE 1)
Filing
8
ORDER directing that, upon an independent review of the file in this case and upon consideration of the 4 and 7 Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge be and is hereby A DOPTED, that the 4 Recommendation entered on January 23, 2012, as well as that of the 7 Recommendation entered on February 6, 2012, remains in full force and effect and the case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and the 5 motion to dismiss filed by the plaintiff on January 31, 2012 is DENIED as moot. Signed by Honorable Judge Truman M. Hobbs on 3/5/12. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(scn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RANDY PRESSLEY,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDY HUGES, et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO. 1:12-cv-50-TMH
[wo]
OPINION and ORDER
On January 23, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this case to
which no timely objections have been filed. (Doc. No. 4). Again on February 6, 2012,
the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this case to which no timely objections
have been filed. (Doc. No. 7). Upon an independent review of the file in this case and
upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge be
and is hereby ADOPTED, that the Recommendation entered on January 23, 2012, as well
as that of the Recommendation entered on February 6, 2012, remains in full force and
effect and the case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and the
motion to dismiss filed by the plaintiff on January 31, 2012 is DENIED as moot.
DONE this 5th day of March, 2012.
/s/ Truman M. Hobbs
_____________________________________
TRUMAN M. HOBBS
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?