Morris v. Coram et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 14

ORDER (1) ADOPTING 4 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Mag Judge; (2) the claims arising from the conduct and/or actions of defs which occurred on or before 10/6/06 and/or 10/31/06 be DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(b)(1) as the complaint is not filed within the time prescribed by the applicable period of limitations; (3) to the extent plf's complaint challenges the constitutionality of his convictions and/or sente nces entered against him by this court in Criminal Number 2:05-CR-108-LSC and/or 2:06-CR-218-MHT, these claims be DISMISSED in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(b)(1); and (4) This case be DISMISSED prior to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(b)(1). Signed by Honorable Truman M. Hobbs on 3/4/10. (djy, )

Download PDF
THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION G E O R G E HOEY MORRIS, #11672-002, Plaintiff, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:09-CV-1085-TMH [W O ] T H O M A S CORAM, JR., et al., Defendants. ORDER O n December 10, 2009, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. 4) in this c a s e . Objections to the Recommendation were originally due on December 28, 2009, and P la in tif f received an extension to file objections through January 29, 2010. (Doc. 10.) On F e b ru a ry 2, 1010, Plaintiff filed a Notice to the Court (Doc. 11), which was construed by the C o u rt as an objection. However, the Notice/objection does not provide any grounds or re a so n s for his objection. Therefore, the purported objection is without merit. U p o n an independent review of the file in this case and upon consideration of the R e c o m m e n d a tio n of the Magistrate Judge, it is ORDERED that: 1. 2. T h e Recommendation (Doc. 4) of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED, and T h e claims arising from the conduct and/or actions of Defendants which o c c u rre d on or before October 6, 2006 and/or October 31, 2006 be D IS M IS S E D with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the p ro v is io n s of 28 U.S.C. 1915(A)(b)(1) as the complaint is not filed within th e time prescribed by the applicable period of limitations: 3. T o the extent Plaintiff's complaint challenges the constitutionality of his c o n v ic tio n s and/or sentences entered against him by this court in Criminal N u m b e r 2:05-CR-108-LSC (M.D. Ala.) and/or 2:06-CR-218-MHT (M.D. A la ), these claims be DISMISSED in accordance with the directives of 28 U .S .C . 1915(A)(b)(1); and 4. T h is case be DISMISSED prior to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1 9 1 5 (A )(b)(1). An appropriate judgment will be entered. D o n e this 4th day of March, 2010. /s / Truman M. Hobbs S E N IO R UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?