Lee v. Alabama Bureau of Investigation et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 13

ORDERED as follows: 1) Plf's 11 Objections are OVERRULED; 2) The court ADOPTS the 10 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; 3) The Plf's § 1983 claims presented against the named Dfts are DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 USC  7; 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)(ii), and/or (iii); 4) The Plf's challenges to the criminal charge pending against him before state court are dismissed without prejudice under 28 USC § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); 5) The Complaint as amended is DISMISSED prior to service of process. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 6/2/2014. (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
DEANDRA M. LEE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ABI-MONTGOMERY DIVISION, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14cv68-WHA
)
(WO)
)
)
)
ORDER

This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc.
#10), entered on March 24, 2014, and the Plaintiff’s Objection thereto (Doc. #11), filed on April
2, 2014.
Following an independent evaluation and de novo review of the entire file in this case the
court finds the Plaintiff’s objections to be without merit. The objections do no more than
reiterate the arguments presented in the Complaint and Amendment to Complaint, and the court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s findings in that regard. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED as
follows:
1.

Plaintiffs’ Objections are OVERRULED.

2.

The court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

3.

The Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims presented against the named Defendants are
DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)(ii), and/or (iii).

4. The Plaintiff’s challenges to the criminal charge pending against him before state
court are dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
5. The Complaint as amended is DISMISSED prior to service of process.

Done this 2nd day of June, 2014.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2