Taylor v. Smithart et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 9

ORDER; 1. Petitioner's objections 6 and 8 be and the same are hereby OVERRULED; 2. The recommendations of the Magistrate Judge 5 and 7 be and the same are hereby ADOPTED, APPROVED and AFFIRMED; 3. Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 c omplaint against the named defendants be and the same is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); 4. Plaintiff's challenge to the constitutionality of his current incarceration be and the same is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice as further set out in order; 5. Plaintiff's complaint, to the extent it may be construed as a writ of mandamus, be and the same is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction; 6. Plaintiffs ac tion, to the extent it is considered a complaint for declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, be and the same is hereby DENIED pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2 )(B)(i)-(ii) and DISMISSED prior to service of process; and 7. This case be and the same is hereby DISMISSED prior to service of process in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). Signed by Honorable Ira De Ment on 3/30/2011. (jg, )

Download PDF
-SRW Taylor v. Smithart et al (INMATE 2) Doc. 9 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION GLEN I. TAYLOR, #127 254 Plaintiff, v. JUDGE BURT SMITHART, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:10-CV-1057-ID (WO) ORDER Before the court are the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, (Doc. #5), the Supplemental Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, (Doc. #7), and the Plaintiff's objections to those recommendations, (Docs. #6 and #8). Having conducted a de novo determination of those portions of the Magistrate's recommendations to which objections are made, it is CONSIDERED and ORDERED as follows: 1. Petitioner's objections (Docs. #6 and #8) be and the same are hereby OVERRULED; 2. The recommendations of the Magistrate Judge (Docs. #5 and #7) be and the same are hereby ADOPTED, APPROVED and AFFIRMED; 3. Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint against the named defendants be and the same is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); Dockets.Justia.com 4. Plaintiff's challenge to the constitutionality of his current incarceration be and the same is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because that claim is not properly before the Court at this time; 5. Plaintiff's complaint, to the extent it may be construed as a writ of mandamus, be and the same is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction; 6. Plaintiff's action, to the extent it is considered a complaint for declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, be and the same is hereby DENIED pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii) and DISMISSED prior to service of process; and 7. This case be and the same is hereby DISMISSED prior to service of process in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). DONE this the 30th day of March, 2011. /s/ Ira DeMent SENIOR 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?