Rutland v. Harris (MAG+)
ORDER directing that, upon review of the Magistrate's 39 Recommendation and Mr. Rutland's 40 objections, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) Mr. Rutland's objections (Doc. # 40 ) are OVERRULED; (2) The Recommendation (Doc. # 39 ) is AD OPTED; (3) Defendant Ike Harris's motion to dismiss (Doc. # 35 ) is GRANTED; (4) Mr. Rutland's claims against Defendant Ike Harris are DISMISSED with prejudice; (5) Any outstanding motions are DENIED as moot. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 6/17/14. (scn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CLARENCE J. RUTLAND,
CASE NO. 2:13-CV-470-WKW
On May 27, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this
case. (Doc. # 39.) On June 9, 2014, Plaintiff Clarence Rutland filed a document
“[p]ursuant to Rule 60(b),” which the court construes as containing objections to
the Recommendation. (Doc. # 40.) The court has conducted an independent and
de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to which objections have
been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
It is acknowledged that Mr. Rutland’s objections purport to introduce
“newly discovered” allegations that he has suffered asbestos-related injuries while
an inmate at Kilby Correctional Facility. (Doc. # 40, at 4.) Such a claim is not
presently before the court. If Mr. Rutland wishes to raise a new claim against an
appropriate defendant, he must do so by filing a new civil action.
Upon review of the Magistrate’s Recommendation and Mr. Rutland’s
objections, it is ORDERED as follows:
Mr. Rutland’s objections (Doc. # 40) are OVERRULED;
The Recommendation (Doc. # 39) is ADOPTED;
Defendant Ike Harris’s motion to dismiss (Doc. # 35) is GRANTED;
Mr. Rutland’s claims against Defendant Ike Harris are DISMISSED
Any outstanding motions are DENIED as moot.
A separate final judgment will be entered.
DONE this 17th day of June, 2014.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF 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?