Dozier v. Armstrong et al (MAG+)

Filing 9

ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff's 8 objections are OVERRULED; 2. The 7 Recommendation is ADOPTED; 3. Plaintiff's complaint, as amended, is DISMISSED prior to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii) becaus e the amended complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, and seeks monetary relief from defendants who are immune to such relief; and 4. Plaintiffs 6 motion to lift stay to serve defendants is DENIED as moot. A final judgment will be entered separately. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 12/1/2015. (kh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARY L.R. DOZIER,
Plaintiff,
v.
LAWTON ARMSTRONG, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-117-WKW

ORDER
On November 10, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc.
# 7), to which Plaintiff has filed a timely Objection (Doc. # 8). The court has
conducted an independent and de novo review of those portions of the
Recommendation to which objections are made, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The
court concludes that the objections are without merit and that the Magistrate
Judge’s Recommendation is due to be adopted.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1.

Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. # 8) are OVERRULED;

2.

The Recommendation (Doc. # 7) is ADOPTED;

3.

Plaintiff’s complaint, as amended, is DISMISSED prior to service of

process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii) because the amended

complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, and
seeks monetary relief from defendants who are immune to such relief; and
4.

Plaintiff’s motion to lift stay to serve defendants (Doc. # 6) is

DENIED as moot.
A final judgment will be entered separately.
DONE this 1st day of December, 2015.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2