Smedley v. City of Ozark (MAG+)
ORDERED as follows: 1) Mr. Smedley's 6 Objection is OVERRULED; 2) The 5 Recommendation is ADOPTED; and 3) Mr. Smedley's § 1983 claims are DISMISSED pursuant to the directives of 28 USC § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 6/25/2013. (wcl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CITY OF OZARK,
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-304-WKW
Before the court are the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (Doc. # 5) and
Plaintiff Darrell Smedley’s objection (Doc. # 6). Having independently reviewed the
file in this case and conducted a de novo review of those portions of the
Recommendation to which objection is made, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the court finds
that the objection lacks merit.
First, Mr. Smedley’s objection to the application of the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine fails to undermine the Recommendation’s sound reasoning.
Recommendation 3–6); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544
U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (explaining that Rooker-Feldman applies to “cases brought by
state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered
before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and
rejection of those judgments”). Second, with respect to Mr. Smedley’s claim alleging
42 U.S.C. § 1983 municipality liability under a custom and policy theory, Mr.
Smedley presents no argument that was not addressed in the Recommendation, and
his arguments lack merit for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation. Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED as follows:
Mr. Smedley’s objection (Doc. # 6) is OVERRULED;
The Recommendation (Doc. # 5) is ADOPTED; and
Mr. Smedley’s § 1983 claims are DISMISSED pursuant to the directives
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
An appropriate judgment will be entered.
DONE this 25th day of June, 2013.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF 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?