Johnson v. Giles et al (INMATE2)

Filing 6

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