Putnam v. Anderson et al (INMATE 2)
ORDERED as follows: 1) Plf's 8 & 11 objections are OVERRULED; 2) The court ADOPTS the 5 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and the 10 Supplemental Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; 3) Plf's claims against the Dfts in the C omplaint, as amended (Doc. # 8 ), are DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the provisions of 28 USC § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); 4) The Complaint, as amended, is DISMISSED prior to service of process. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 3/19/2014. (wcl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
DAVID LEE PUTNAM, #155 060,
LARRY K. ANDERSON, et al.,
CASE NO. 1:13cv-833-WHA
This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #5),
the Magistrate Judge’s Supplemental Recommendation (Doc. #10), and the Plaintiff’s Objections
to both Recommendations (Docs. #8 and #11). The court has made an independent evaluation
and de novo review of the file in this case, and determines the objections to be without merit.
Plaintiff filed his objection (#11) to the Supplemental Recommendation on February 13,
2014. The first 5 1/2 pages of his 9-page objection simply repeat verbatim a substantial portion
of the February 13 Supplemental Recommendation. Plaintiff then goes on to list his "specific
objections." Plaintiff asserts that he objects to the court's finding that his conspiracy claim is
self-serving, fails to assert material facts sufficient to establish a conspiracy, and is not plausible,
that the court does not have jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman to entertain his claims against
Judge Anderson, and that his complaint is subject to dismissal with prejudice under §
1915(e)(2)(B). However, he provides no argument in support of these stated objections. Plaintiff
goes on to indicate that he will be filing a newly discovered evidence claim of actual innocence
in the Circuit Court for Houston County which he contends will substantiate his conspiracy
claims and eventually lead to a reversal of his conviction. Plaintiff states that at that time he will
be back with "some really strong cognizable claims against Judge Anderson and the Houston
County DA's office." (Doc. #11 at 7-8)
Plaintiff’s additional comments appear to reflect his understanding that he has failed to
present any viable § 1983 claims against the named defendants in either his complaint or
amended complaint (#1, 8).
Finding that both objections are without merit, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED.
2. The court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #5) and the
Supplemental Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #10).
3. Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants in the Complaint, as amended (Doc. #8), are
DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
4. The Complaint, as amended, is DISMISSED prior to service of process.
DONE this 19th day of March, 2014.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
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?