Murray v. Allen et al (INMATE1)

Filing 7

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that 6 MOTION to Dismiss filed by James Murray be granted and that this case be dismissed without prejudice; Objections to R&R due by 3/6/2007. Signed by Judge Terry F. Moorer on 2/23/07. (vma, )

Murray v. Allen et al (INMATE1)

Doc. 7

Case 2:07-cv-00108-MEF-TFM

Document 7

Filed 02/23/2007

Page 1 of 2

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION J A M E S MURRAY, #101186, Plaintiff, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C I V I L ACTION NO. 2:07-CV-108-MEF [W O ]

R IC H A R D ALLEN, et al., Defendants.

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE J a m e s Murray ["Murray"], a state inmate, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on F e b r u a r y 6, 2007. Subsequently, and prior to service of the complaint on the defendants, M u rra y filed a motion to dismiss in which he requests that this case be dismissed without p re ju d ic e . Court Doc. No. 6. Upon consideration of the plaintiff's motion to dismiss, the court concludes that this m o tio n is due to be granted. Furthermore, since the complaint has not been served on the d e fe n d a n ts , the court discerns that this case should be dismissed without prejudice. See Rule 4 1 (a )( 1 ), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A c c o rd in g ly , it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that the p lain tiff's motion to dismiss be granted and that this case be dismissed without prejudice. It is further ORDERED that on or before March 6, 2007 the plaintiff may file objections to the

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:07-cv-00108-MEF-TFM

Document 7

Filed 02/23/2007

Page 2 of 2

R e c o m m e n d a tio n . Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the M a g is tra te Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive o r general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised th a t this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the M a g is tra te Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the D is tr ic t Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from a tta c k in g on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the D is tric t Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

W a in w r ig h t, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 3 3 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en b a n c ), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed d o w n prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. D o n e this 23rd day of February, 2007.

/s /T e rry F. Moorer T E R R Y F. MOORER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2