Keiss v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 29

ORDER as follows: 1. Plaintiff's due process challenge to the 11/3/2013 disciplinary proceedings is DISMISSED without prejudice in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 2. Plaintiff's Complaint against Alabam a Department of Corrections is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 3. The Alabama Department of Corrections is DISMISSED as a party to this action. 4. Plaintiff's 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. 5. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings as to all other claims. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 2/26/2014. (dmn, )

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

CHRISTOPHER M. KEISS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:13cv-951-WHA
(wo)

ORDER
No timely objections having been filed to two Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge
(Docs. #7 and #8), both filed on January 14, 2014, and following a review of the file, the court
ADOPTS the Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s due process challenge to the November 3, 2013 disciplinary proceedings is
DISMISSED without prejudice in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
2. Plaintiff’s Complaint against Alabama Department of Corrections is DISMISSED
with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
3. The Alabama Department of Corrections is DISMISSED as a party to this action.
4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #3) is DENIED.
5. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings as to all
other claims.

DONE this 26th day of February, 2014.

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