Jackson v. Storm et al(MAG+)
ORDER directing as follows: (1) Plaintiff's 5 objection is OVERRULED; (2) the 4 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; and (3) this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), as Plaintiff may not maintain a claim for injunctive relief against Defendants Storm and Huff, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 12/27/11. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(scn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SUSAN ROSS STROM, et al.,
CASE NO. 2:11-CV-882-WKW
On October 26, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a recommendation that this
case be dismissed because Plaintiff Jackson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims do not entitle
her to relief. (Doc. # 4.) The recommendation concluded that Plaintiff cannot
maintain a claim for injunctive relief against Defendants because they were acting in
their judicial capacity during the family court proceeding at issue in this case. (Doc.
# 4 at 2-3.) Plaintiff filed a letter with the court, which will be construed as an
objection to the recommendation. (Doc. # 5.) The portions of the recommendation
to which a party objects are reviewed de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
A de novo review of the record and law confirms that the recommendation
(Doc. # 4) is due to be adopted and the objection overruled. No new evidence is
offered to support any of Plaintiff’s contentions. Furthermore, Plaintiff concedes that
judges are immune from the suit she filed. (Doc. # 5 at 1.) The objections to the
recommendation are cumulative of arguments made previously by Plaintiff in support
of her suit and amount to a plea not to dismiss this case because she is not an attorney
and because she thinks she might be able to find some evidence to support her
contentions. Plaintiff’s invitation to overlook procedure and the absence of evidence
is declined. Therefore, it is ORDERED as follows:
Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. # 5) is OVERRULED;
the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; and
this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), as
Plaintiff may not maintain a claim for injunctive relief against Defendants Storm and
Huff, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
DONE this 27th day of December, 2011.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?