Banks v. DeLoach et al (INMATE 1)

Filing 6

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re MOTION to Dismiss filed by Christopher Banks; it is the Recommendation of the Mag Judge that the plaintiff's motion to dismiss be granted and that this case be dismissed without prejudice; Objections to R&R due by 12/15/2008. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 12/2/08. (vma, )

Download PDF
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 C H R IS T O P H E R BANKS, #238790, Plaintiff, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C IV IL ACTION NO. 2:08-CV-910-TMH [W O ] J A M E S DELOACH, et al., Defendants R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE C h ris to p h e r Banks ["Banks"], a state inmate, filed the instant action in which he seeks to have the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama initiate a criminal c o m p la in t against correctional officials for actions undertaken during his confinement at the D ra p e r Correctional Facility. On November 25, 2008, Banks filed a traverse in which he s e e k s dismissal of this case as "the action ... was wrongfully activated." Court Doc. No. 3. T h e court construes this document to contain a motion to dismiss. Upon consideration of the motion to dismiss, the court concludes that this motion is d u e to be granted. Furthermore, since the action has not been served on the defendants, the c o u rt discerns that this case should be dismissed without prejudice. Rule 41(a)(1), Federal R u l e s of Civil Procedure. A c c o rd in g ly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that the p la in tif f 's motion to dismiss be granted and that this case be dismissed without prejudice. It is further ORDERED that on or before December 15, 2008 the plaintiff may file objections to t h e Recommendation. 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 tric 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 2nd day of December, 2008. /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. WALLACE CAPEL, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

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?