Mitchell v. Wynne, et al (INMATE 1)
ORDER that the Plf's 42 Objections are OVERRULED, the court ADOPTS the 41 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; ORDERED that the Dft's 16 , 21 , & 26 Motions for Summary Judgment are GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 3/23/2015. (wcl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORTHE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JERMAINE MITCHELL, #205893,
WILLIAM WYNNE, JR., et al.,
CASE NO. 2:12-cv-249-WHA
This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #41),
and the Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. #42). Following an independent evaluation and de novo
review of this case, the court finds as follows:
This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
violated the directives of various state statutes during the parole consideration process which
resulted in the decision to deny him parole. He also challenges the constitutionality of the parole
consideration process and the decision to deny him parole. The Complaint also references due
process, cruel and unusual punishment, the ex post facto clause, free speech, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and state law claims. This court determines that the Magistrate Judge has
appropriately analyzed all claims and has come to the correct conclusions.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED, the court ADOPTS the
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby
ORDERED that the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment are GRANTED, and
this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
DONE this 23rd day of March, 2015.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR 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?