Johnson v. Giles et al (INMATE2)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that plaintiff's 4 MOTION to Dismiss be GRANTED; that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice; that no costs or fees be taxed in this case; Objections to R&R due by 1/20/2009. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 1/6/2009. (cc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION _______________________________ D A V ID L. JOHNSON, #255 052, Plaintiff, v. J.C. GILES, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . _______________________________ * * * * 2:08-CV-876-TMH (WO) *
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE O n December 29, 2008 Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss. Upon consideration of th e motion, the court concludes that the motion is due to be granted. Furthermore, since the c o m p la in t has not been served, the court finds that this case is due to be dismissed without p re ju d ic e . See Rule 41(a)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A c c o rd in g ly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: 1 . Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 4) be GRANTED; 2 . This case be DISMISSED without prejudice; and 3 . No costs or fees be taxed in this case. It is further O R D E R E D that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said R e c o m m e n d a tio n on or before January 20, 2009. Any objections filed must specifically id e n tif y the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects.
Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The p a rtie s are advised that 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 recommendations in the M a g is tra te Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District C o u rt of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual f in d in g s in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain erro r or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 th Cir. 1982). See Stein v . Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of P r ic h a r d , 661 F.2d 1206 (11 th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the d e c is io n s of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on S e p te m b e r 30, 1981. Done, this 6 th day of January 2009.
/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. WALLACE CAPEL, JR. U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?