Johnson v. Wright, et al.

Filing 107

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 75 motion to dismiss; dismissing without prejudice all claims against the Chilton County Commission and terminating the Chilton County Commission as a party to this action; denying as moot 73 motion for judgment on the pleadings; furnished to KG, YG, HC Signed by Judge Mark E. Fuller on 5/26/05. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(ajr, )

Johnson v. Wright, et al.

Doc. 107

Case 2:04-cv-00117-MEF-TFM

Document 107

Filed 05/26/2005

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F OR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E RN DIVISION T H O M A S JOHNSON, PL AI NT IFF , v. CIT Y OF CLANTON, et al., DEFEND ANTS. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C A S E NO. 2:04-cv-117-MEF WO

M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER In February of 2004, Plaintiff Thomas Johnson brought this suit against the Chilton Co unty Commission and numerous other defendants. Plaintiff's allegations against all defe ndan ts arise out of an alleged incident between Plaintiff and certain police officers on M a y 25, 2002, outside a bar in Clanton, Alabama. It is alleged that two law enforcement officers for the City of Clanton improperly arrested Plaintiff and used excessive force against him to effectuate the arrest. It is further alleged that these officers then transported Plaintiff to the Chilton County Jail where he was further physically abused by law enforcement, i n c l u d in g Sheriff's Deputies for the Chilton County Sheriff's Department. Some of the law e n f o r c e m e n t officers named as defendants in this action are alleged to have been acting as Sheriff's Deputies for the Chilton County Sheriff's Department under the direction of the Ch ilton County Commission at the time of the incident. This cause is presently before the Court on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ( D o c . # 73) filed by Defendant Chilton County Commission on March 10, 2005. Upon r e c e ip t of this motion, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause why the motion should not

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:04-cv-00117-MEF-TFM

Document 107

Filed 05/26/2005

Page 2 of 2

b e granted. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a document styled as a "Response to Motion for J u d g m e n t on the Pleadings and Motion to Dismiss the Chilton County Commission" (Doc. # 75). Rather than attempting to refute any of the legal arguments set forth in the motion or to in any way oppose the motion for judgment on the pleadings, Plaintiffs asks this Court to d i s m i s s the Chilton County Commission as a defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Proced ure 41. Plaintiff asks that all claims against the Chilton County Commission be dism issed without prejudice. The Court notes that no party has objected or responded to Plaintiff's request for d i s m i ss a l without prejudice. Moreover, the Court observes that Chilton County Commission h a s filed neither an answer nor a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court f i n d s that this action is due to be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of C i v i l Procedure 41(a)(1). It is hereby ORDERED as follows: ( 1 ) The M o tio n to Dismiss the Chilton County Commission (Doc. # 75) filed by P la in ti ff is GRANTED. ( 2 ) All claims in this action against the Chilton County Commission are hereby D I S M I S S E D WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to t e r m i n at e the Chilton County Commission as a party to this action. ( 3 ) The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. # 73) filed by the Chilton County Co mm issio n is DENIED as MOOT. DONE this the 26 th day of May, 2005.

/s/ Mark E. Fuller CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2