Dean v. Bryan et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 21

ORDERED as follows: 1) The 17 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; 2) Plf's 1983 claims against Defendants Kirke Adams, David C. Emery, and the City of Ozark Police Department are DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 USC 1915(e)(2)( B)(i) and (iii); 3) Plf's 1983 conspiracy claim is DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); 4) Dfts Adams, Emery, and the City of Ozark Police Department are DISMISSED as parties to this action; and 5) This case is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 3/22/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist) (wcl, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION DEDRIC JAMAR DEAN, #197053, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL BRYAN, CHRIS JUNEAU, JAMES ISLER, DAVID GRICE, CITY OF OZARK POLICE DEPARTMENT, MARLOUS WALKER, KIRKE ADAMS, and DAVID C. EMERY, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:16-CV-92-WKW [WO] ORDER Before the court is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. # 17.) There being no timely objection filed to the Recommendation, and based on a review of the record, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 17) is ADOPTED; 2. Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against Defendants Kirke Adams, David C. Emery, and the City of Ozark Police Department are DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii); 3. Plaintiff’s § 1983 conspiracy claim is DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); 4. Defendants Adams, Emery, and the City of Ozark Police Department are DISMISSED as parties to this action; and 5. This case is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. DONE this 22nd day of March, 2017. /s/ W. Keith Watkins CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?