Flakes v. Daniels et al (INMATE 2)
ORDERS as follows: (1) The 7 Objection is hereby OVERRULED; (2) The 5 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED, APPROVED, and AFFIRMED; (3) Plaintiff's action is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); and (4) The Court will enter a separate final judgment. Signed by Honorable Ira De Ment on 3/23/2010. (cb, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION CLINT A. FLAKES, #191 068 Plaintiff, v. WARDEN DANIELS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
ORDER B e fo re the Court are the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 5, filed M a rc h 4, 2010) and Plaintiff's Objection to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (D o c . 7, filed March 17, 2010). The Court, having conducted a de novo review of those p o rtio n s of the Recommendation to which objection is made, ORDERS as follows: 1. 2. P la in tiff's Objection (Doc. 7) be and the same is hereby OVERRULED. T h e Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 5) be and the same is h e re b y ADOPTED, APPROVED and AFFIRMED. 3. P la in tiff's action is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of p ro c e ss pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 4. T h e Court will enter a separate final judgment.
Done this 23rd day of March, 2010. /s / Ira DeMent SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?