Whitehead v. Valeska et al (INMATE 1)

Filing 9

ORDER directing that the court adopts the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 7 ), and it is hereby ORDERED as follows: (1) The plaintiff's challenge to the constitutionality of his arrest on August 16, 2010 is DISMISSED with prejudi ce pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as the plaintiff failed to file the complaint within the time prescribed by the applicable period of limitation; (2) The plaintiff's claims against defendants Valeska and Shields are DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii); (3) The plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim is summarily DISMISSED pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i i) as it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; (4) To the extent the plaintiff presents claims challenging the constitutionality of his conviction by the Circuit Court of Houston County, Alabama and the incarceration resulting from this conviction, these claims are DISMISSED in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as such claims are not cognizable in the instant civil action; (5) This case is DISMISSED prior to service of process in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii), and (iii). Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 6/3/14. (scn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

TODD JOHNATHAN WHITEHEAD,
AIS #287908,
Plaintiff,
v.

DOUGLAS ALBERT VALESKA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-cv-39-WHA

ORDER
This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 7),
to which no timely objection has been filed.
The court adopts the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 7), and it is
hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The plaintiff’s challenge to the constitutionality of his arrest on August 16, 2010 is
DISMISSED

with

prejudice

pursuant

to

the

provisions

of

28

U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as the plaintiff failed to file the complaint within the time
prescribed by the applicable period of limitation.
2. The plaintiff’s claims against defendants Valeska and Shields are DISMISSED with
prejudice in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii).
3. The plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim is summarily DISMISSED pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as it fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.

4. To the extent the plaintiff presents claims challenging the constitutionality of his
conviction by the Circuit Court of Houston County, Alabama and the incarceration
resulting from this conviction, these claims are DISMISSED in accordance with the
directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as such claims are not cognizable in the
instant civil action.
5. This case is DISMISSED prior to service of process in accordance with the directives
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii), and (iii).

DONE this 3rd day of June, 2014.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2