Barley v. Houston et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 5

ORDER directing that, after a review of the file, the Recommendation is ADOPTED, and it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as it was not filed within the time prescribed by the applicable period of limitations; 2. This case is DISMISSED prior to service of process in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 12/16/13. (scn, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION DANIEL M. BARLEY, #260 262, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY RANDALL V. HOUSTON, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13cv534-WHA (WO) ORDER No timely objection having been filed to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #4), entered on November 19, 2013, and after a review of the file, the Recommendation is ADOPTED, and it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as it was not filed within the time prescribed by the applicable period of limitations. 2. This case is DISMISSED prior to service of process in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). DONE this 16th day of December, 2013. /s/ W. Harold Albritton W. HAROLD ALBRITTON SENIOR 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?