Tullis v. Valeska, et al. (INMATE 2)

Filing 12

JUDGMENT, In accordance with the memorandum opinion entered this date, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court as follows: (1) plaintiff's 10 Objections are overruled; (2) the 9 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted except as to the recommended dismissal based on the statute of limitations; (3) plf's claims against defs, challenging their conduct in initiating and prosecuting criminal charges against her, are dismissed with prejudice under 28 U. S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii), as defs are entitled to absolute immunity; (4) plf's challenge to the constitutionality of the conviction and sentence imposed upon her on or about 9/21/2011, by the Circuit Court for Houston County, Alabama, is dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), as the challenge is not properly before the court at this time; further ORDERING that costs are taxed against plf, for which execution may issue; directing the clerk to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 FRCP; this case is closed. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/13/15. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

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

LISA McKINLEY TULLIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
D.A. DOUGLAS A. VALESKA,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:15cv90-MHT
(WO)

JUDGMENT
In accordance with the memorandum opinion entered
this date, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the
court as follows:
(1) Plaintiff's

objections

(doc.

no.

10)

are

overruled.
(2) The

United

States

Magistrate

Judge's

recommendation (doc. no. 9) is adopted except as to the
recommended

dismissal

based

on

the

statute

of

limitations.
(3) Plaintiff’s

claims

against

defendants,

challenging their conduct in initiating and prosecuting

criminal

charges

against

her,

are

dismissed

with

prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii),
as defendants are entitled to absolute immunity.
(4)

Plaintiff’s challenge to the constitutionality

of the conviction and sentence imposed upon her on or
about

September

21,

2011,

by

the

Circuit

Court

for

Houston County, Alabama, is dismissed without prejudice
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), as the challenge
is not properly before the court at this time.
It is further ORDERED that costs are taxed against
plaintiff, for which execution may issue.
The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter this
document

on

the

civil

pursuant

to

Rule

58

of

docket
the

as

a

Federal

final
Rules

judgment
of

Procedure.
This case is closed.
DONE, this the 13th day of July, 2015.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Civil