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, )

-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