Hatcher v. Wynne et al (INMATE 1)

Filing 19

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 5 objection to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is overruled; (2) The 4 Recommendation of th e Magistrate Judge is adopted; (3) The request for monetary damages is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) as the defendants are entitled to immunity from such damages. (4) The claims arising from actions/decisions which occurred on o r before April 8, 2011 are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) due to the plaintiff's failure to file the complaint within the time prescribed by the applicable period of limitation; (5) The d iscrimination claim is summarily dismissed in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because the mere differential treatment of inmates does not violate the Constitution; (6) This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for appropriate orders or recommendations on plaintiff's remaining claims. Signed by Honorable Judge Truman M. Hobbs on 5/17/13. (scn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
RONALD LEE HATCHER,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM WYNNE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:13-cv-0226-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. #5) to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
filed on April 25, 2013 is overruled;
2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #4) filed on April 17, 2013
is adopted;
3. The request for monetary damages is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) as the defendants are entitled to immunity from such damages.
4. The claims arising from actions/decisions which occurred on or before April 8,
2011 are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)
due to the plaintiff’s failure to file the complaint within the time prescribed by the applicable
period of limitation.
5. The discrimination claim is summarily dismissed in accordance with the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because the mere differential treatment of
inmates does not violate the Constitution.
6. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for appropriate orders or
recommendations on plaintiff's remaining claims.
DONE this 17th day of May, 2013.

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

2