Addie v. Alabama Board of Pardons & Paroles et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 40

ORDER directing as follows: (1) Plaintiff's 36 objections are OVERRULED; (2) The court ADOPTS the 34 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; (3) This case is DISMISSED with prejudice; (4) The costs are taxed against the Plaintiff. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on July 1, 2015. (scn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORTHE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

DANNY LAMAR ADDIE, #152701,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WILLIAM W. WYNN, JR., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:12-cv-297-WHA
(WO)

ORDER
This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #34),
entered on April 29, 2015, and the Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. #36), filed on May 14, 2015.
The court has conducted an independent evaluation and de novo review of the file in this
case. Plaintiff makes four objections to the Recommendation.
First, the Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge abused his discretion by denying
Plaintiff’s interrogatories without properly filed objections from the Defendants. The objection,
however, is late. The ruling that denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to
Interrogatories was entered on July 17, 2012, and the Plaintiff had fourteen (14) days thereafter
to file an objection to the ruling. See Rule 72(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. Therefore, the current objection
is untimely.
Second, the Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge improperly held that the
Defendants had met their evidentiary burden and demonstrated an absence of any genuine
dispute of material fact. Plaintiff’s fourth objection is a variation on his second. As to both of
these, the court has considered the Magistrate Judge’s explanation shown on pages 14-16 of the

Recommendation, and the court agrees with his findings. Therefore, these two objections are
found to be without merit.
Finally, the Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that the Plaintiff
failed to create a genuine dispute whether sex offenders are similarly situated to non-sex
offenders. The question presented here, however, concerns the grounds for parole, not the way
inmates are treated in prison. In denying Plaintiff parole, the Defendants evaluated the relevant
factors such as the inmate’s record, offense, potential for future violence, community attitude,
home and job plan, and any other relevant factors presented to the Board. See pages 9 and 15 of
the Recommendation.
For the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED.
2. The court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
3. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
4. The costs are taxed against the Plaintiff.
DONE this 1st day of July, 2015.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE