Sanders v. Myrick et al (INMATE1)

Filing 66

ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE that: 1. The plaintiff's 64 Objection is overruled; 2. The 60 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED, APPROVED, and AFFIRMED; 3. The plaintiff's claims presented against Sharon Yates are here by DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii); 4. The plaintiffs challenges to the constitutionality of the criminal charges pending against him before the Grand Jury of Montgomery Count y, Alabama are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S. C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii)as such claims are not properly before the court at this time; 5. This case, with respect to the plaintiffs claims challenging the constitutionality of his arrest and the actions taken against him during the arrest, is referredback to the Magistrate Judge for additional proceedings. Signed by Honorable Ira De Ment on 2/26/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(dmn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA OF N O R T H E R N DIVISION G E O R G E SANDERS, JR., A IS # 263280, P l a i n t if f , v. M . P. MYRICK, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C A SE NO. 2:09-CV-771-ID (W O )

ORDER
A fte r an independent review of the file, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE o f the court that: 1. The plaintiff's objection to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed

o n February 11, 2010 (Doc. No. 64), is overruled; 2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed on February 1, 2010 (Doc.

N o . 60), is hereby ADOPTED, APPROVED and AFFIRMED; 3. The plaintiff's claims presented against Judge Sharon Yates are hereby

DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B )(ii) and (iii); 4. T h e plaintiff's challenges to the constitutionality of the criminal charges

pending against him before the Grand Jury of Montgomery County, Alabama are hereby D ISM ISSE D without prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S. C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii) a s such claims are not properly before the court at this time;

5.

T h is case, with respect to the plaintiff's claims challenging the

constitutionality of his arrest and the actions taken against him during the arrest, is referred b ac k to the Magistrate Judge for additional proceedings.

DONE this 26 th day of February, 2010. /s/ Ira DeMent SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE