Horton v. Thomas et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 16

ORDER that: 1. The RECOMMENDATIONS (Docs. 5 & 6 ) of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED; 2. Plaintiff's 1 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED; 3. Plaintiffs claims against the Alabama Department of Corrections and inmateJohnson are D ISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); 4. The Alabama Department of Corrections and inmate Johnson are DISMISSED as parties to this cause of action; and 5. This case, with respect to Plaintiffs claims against the remaining defendants, is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Judge Truman M. Hobbs on 5/13/2013. (dmn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
STEVEN HORTON, #200 919,
Plaintiff,
v.
KIM THOMAS, COMMISSIONER,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-152-TMH
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER
The Magistrate Judge entered two Recommendations (Docs. 5 & 6) 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. 5 & 6) of the Magistrate Judge are
ADOPTED;

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 1) is DENIED;

3.

Plaintiff’s claims against the Alabama Department of Corrections and inmate
Johnson are DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i);

4.

The Alabama Department of Corrections and inmate Johnson are DISMISSED

as parties to this cause of action; and
5.

This case, with respect to Plaintiff’s claims against the remaining defendants,
is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

Done this the 13th day of May, 2013.

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

2