Jackson v. State of Alabama Department of Corrections et al (MAG+)
ORDER: it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the 16 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and that pursuant to 28 USC § 1915(e)(2)(B): 1) Plf's § 1983 claims against dft Alabama Department of Corrections is dismissed and this d ft is terminated as a party; 2) Plf's Title VII claims against dfts Thomas and Forniss are dismissed, as further set out in order; 3) Plf's § 1983 First Amendment claim included within Count Three is dismissed with prejudice as redundant to that in Count Two; 4) This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings on plf's remaining claims. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/31/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist) (wcl, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SABRINA C. JACKSON,
STATE OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT )
OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14cv18-MHT
On February 19, 2014, the magistrate judge filed a recommendation in this case to
which no timely objections have been filed. Upon an independent and de novo review of
the file in this case and upon consideration of the recommendation of the magistrate judge,
it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc.
# 16) is adopted and that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B):
Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against defendant Alabama Department of Corrections
is dismissed and this defendant is terminated as a party.
Plaintiff’s Title VII claims against defendants Thomas and Forniss are
Because these two defendants are still parties to other claims, they are not
Plaintiff’s § 1983 First Amendment claim included within Count Three is
dismissed with prejudice as redundant to that in Count Two.
This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings on
plaintiff’s remaining claims.
Done this the 31st day of March, 2014.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
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?