Cole v. Counts et al (INMATE 1)

Filing 7

ORDER directing as follows: (1) plf's 6 objections are OVERRULED; (2) the 5 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; (3) Plfs claims challenging the revocation of probation and the sentence imposed by the trial court u pon such revocation are DISMISSED withoutprejudice prior to service of process in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); (4) (4) Judge Sharon R. Clark and Probation Officer Jared McPhaul are DISMISSED as defendants in this a ction; (5) Plfs claim seeking prosecution of Defendant Counts for tampering with his mail is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); and (6) Plfs claim that Defendant Counts tampered with his legal mail in violation of his constitutional right of access to the court is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 6/20/16. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GORDON COLE, SR., # 297280,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES M. COUNTS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:16-CV-345-WKW
[WO]

ORDER
On June 1, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 5) to
which Plaintiff timely filed objections (Doc. # 6). The court has conducted an
independent and de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to which
objection is made, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and finds that Plaintiff’s objections are
without merit. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
(1)

Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. # 6) are OVERRULED;

(2)

The Recommendation (Doc. # 29) is ADOPTED;

(3)

Plaintiff’s claims challenging the revocation of probation and the

sentence imposed by the trial court upon such revocation are DISMISSED without
prejudice prior to service of process in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii);

(4)

Judge Sharon R. Clark and Probation Officer Jared McPhaul are

DISMISSED as defendants in this action;
(5)

Plaintiff’s claim seeking prosecution of Defendant Counts for

tampering with his mail is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to the provisions of
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); and
(6)

Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Counts tampered with his legal mail in

violation of his constitutional right of access to the court is REFERRED back to the
Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
DONE this 20th day of June, 2016.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2