Gaines v. Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 15

ORDER directing that, after an independent review of the file, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court that: (1.) The plaintiff's 14 objection to the 11 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is overruled; (2.) The 11 Recommendat ion of the Magistrate Judge is adopted; (3.) Plaintiff's claims against the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles are DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); (4.) Plaintiff's claims for damages against defendants Di llard, Wynn, Longshore, and Walker are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(iii); (5.) Plaintiff's claims asserting error in denying him parole and causing his illegal confinement are DISMISSED wit hout prejudice in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); (6.) This case is DISMISSED prior to service of process. Signed by Honorable Judge Truman M. Hobbs on 1/20/12. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(scn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
HENRY GAINES, #113380,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS
AND PAROLES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:11-cv-749-TMH
WO

ORDER
After an independent review of the file, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE
of the court that:
1. The plaintiff's objection (Doc. #14) to the Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge filed on December 13, 2011 is overruled;
2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #11) filed on November 22,
2011 is adopted;
3.

Plaintiff's claims against the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles are

DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
4. Plaintiff's claims for damages against defendants Dillard, Wynn, Longshore, and
Walker are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).
5. Plaintiff's claims asserting error in denying him parole and causing his illegal
confinement are DISMISSED without prejudice in accordance with the directives of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
6. This case is DISMISSED prior to service of process.
DONE this the 20th day of January, 2012.

/s/ Truman M. Hobbs
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2