Edwards v. Montgomery County

Filing 7

ORDER as follows: (1) The 6 RECOMMENDATION is ADOPTED. (2) To the extent Plaintiff challenges the outcome of a state court proceeding, the claim is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h) (3); (3) Any other claims against Judge Kelly are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii), and; (4) Any other claims against Montgomery County are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii), and (5) This case is DISMISSED. Final judgment will be entered separately. Signed by Honorable William Keith Watkins on 6/28/2010. (dmn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION R O D N E Y EDWARDS, P la in tif f , v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, A L A B A M A , et al., D e f e n d a n ts. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C A S E NO. 2:10-CV-472-WKW

ORDER T h e re being no objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 6) of the M a g is tra te Judge ("Recommendation"), and after an independent review, it is ORDERED a s follows: (1 ) The Recommendation is ADOPTED; (2 ) To the extent Plaintiff challenges the outcome of a state court proceeding, the c la im is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil P ro c e d u re 12(h)(3); (3 ) Any other claims against Judge Kelly are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 2 8 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii), and; (4 ) Any other claims against Montgomery County are DISMISSED with prejudice p u rs u a n t to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii), and (5 ) This case is DISMISSED. F in a l judgment will be entered separately.

DONE this 28th day of June, 2010.

/s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE