Foster v. Dillard et al (INMATE 1)

Filing 66

ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED. 2. The court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 3. The Defendants' motion or summary judgment is GRANTED, and judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants. 4. P ursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim, and the state law claim is DISMISSED without prejudice. 5. Costs are taxed against the Plaintiff.Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 5/25/2016. (kh, )

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

EDDIE LEE FOSTER, #143404,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CYNTHIA DILLARD, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:13-cv-288-WHA
(WO)

ORDER
This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #64),
entered on April 12, 2016, together with the Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. #65), filed on May 2,
2016.
The court has conducted an independent evaluation and de novo review of the file in this
case and, having done so, finds the objections to be without merit.
In the Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge extensively addressed each of the
Plaintiff’s claims for relief and determined that the Defendants were entitled to summary
judgment. In his objections, the Plaintiff merely repeats his claims for relief and makes the
conclusory statement that general material disputes exist. The “material disputes” referenced by
the Plaintiff relate to his disagreement with the findings set forth in the Recommendation and do
not present a genuine dispute of the material facts before the court. For instance, the Plaintiff
alleges that state law governing parole is unconstitutional because it provides complete discretion
to the parole board to determine who should be released on parole and does not provide criteria
for entitlement to parole, and asserts his purely subjective belief that the form letter advising him

of the denial of parole, which expresses the Board’s “hope” of his cooperation with prison
officials so that he may receive potential benefits, constituted a contractual agreement creating an
expectation of being released on parole.
The court agrees with the analysis and well-reasoned findings of the Magistrate Judge,
and finds the Plaintiff’s objections to be without merit. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED as
follows:
1. Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED.
2. The court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
3. The Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and judgment is
entered in favor of the Defendants.
4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claim, and the state law claim is DISMISSED without prejudice.
5. Costs are taxed against the Plaintiff.
DONE this 25th day of May, 2016.

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