Brooks v. State of Alabama et al (INMATE 1)
Filing
21
ORDER that 1. The Recommendations (Docs. 19 & 20 ) of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED; 2. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction 15 is DENIED; 3. Plaintiff's claims against the State of Alabama are dismissed with prejudice purs uant to the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii); 4. The State of Alabama is dismissed as a defendant in this action; and 5. This case, with respect to the allegations set forth against Lt. Jones, Officer Bailey, and Officer Person, is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for appropriate proceedings. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 10/27/2011. (jg, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
CALVIN J. BROOKS,
AIS #179333,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF ALABAMA, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-723-WHA
[WO]
ORDER
The Magistrate Judge entered Recommendations (Docs. #19 & 20) in this case to which
no timely objections have been filed. After a review of the Recommendations, and after an
independent review of the entire record, the court finds that the Recommendations should be
adopted. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Recommendations (Docs. #19 & 20) of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED;
2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. #15) is DENIED;
3. Plaintiff’s claims against the State of Alabama are dismissed with prejudice
pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii);
4. The State of Alabama is dismissed as a defendant in this action; and
5. This case, with respect to the allegations set forth against Lt. Jones, Officer
Bailey, and Officer Person, is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for appropriate
proceedings.
Done this 27th day of October, 2011.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton
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?