Harrison v. Alabama Department of Corrections(INMATE2)
ORDER as follows: 1. Mr. Harrison's 15 Objection is OVERRULED. 2. The 10 Recommendation is ADOPTED. 3. Mr. Harrison's case is DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An appropriate final judgment will be entered separately.Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 3/4/2015. (dmn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
CASE NO. 2:15-CV-066-WKW
On February 19, 2015 the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this
case. (Doc. # 10.) On March 2, 2015, Plaintiff Christopher Harrison filed an
objection. (Doc. # 15.) The court has conducted an independent and de novo review
of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. See 28 U.S.C.
In his objection, Mr. Harrison objects to the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation that his claim is the product of irrational or delusional thinking and
reasserts the allegations contained in his Amended Complaint (Doc. # 7), namely
that he has a computerized radio transmitter in his abdomen that is programmed to
force him to commit suicide. Mr. Harrison alleges that he ingested the radio
transmitter because it was disguised as food. Because Mr. Harrison fails to present
a logical set of facts to support a claim for relief, his Objection (Doc. # 15) is due to
be overruled and the Recommendation (Doc. # 10) of the Magistrate Judge adopted.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
Mr. Harrison’s Objection (Doc. # 15) is OVERRULED.
The Recommendation (Doc. # 10) is ADOPTED.
Mr. Harrison’s case is DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of
process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
An appropriate final judgment will be entered separately.
DONE this 4th day of March, 2015.
/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?