Bell-James v. Career Personnel(MAG+)

Filing 11

ORDER: Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Recommendation. Because Plaintiffs 7 Appeal contains additional information regarding her claims ofdiscrimination, the court construes the Appeal as also containing an objection to the Recommendati on. It is ORDERED that: (1) The 7 objection is OVERRULED;(2) The 6 Recommendation is ADOPTED; and (3) The complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice prior to service of process, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A separate final judgment will be entered. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 5/2/2016. (dmn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
ANGELA D. BELL-JAMES,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAREER PERSONNEL,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-484-WKW
[WO]

ORDER
On January 4, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation and set a
January 19, 2016 deadline for objections. (Doc. # 6.) On January 14, 2016,
Plaintiff filed a document that she titled an Appeal.

(Doc. # 7.)

The court

construed the appeal as containing a request for an extension of time to object and
granted Plaintiff until February 22, 2016, to object to the Recommendation. (Doc.
# 8.) On February 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time. (Doc.
# 9.) The court granted the motion and extended Plaintiff’s time to object to
April 25, 2016.

Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Recommendation.

Because Plaintiff’s Appeal contains additional information regarding her claims of
discrimination, the court construes the Appeal as also containing an objection to
the Recommendation. It has conducted an independent and de novo review of

those portions of the Recommendation to which objections are made, see 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed
prior to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for failure to state a claim.
The additional documents submitted by Plaintiff do not cure the defects in her
complaint, and, therefore, the objection is without merit.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
(1)

The objection (Doc. # 7) is OVERRULED;

(2)

The Recommendation (Doc. # 6) is ADOPTED; and

(3)

The complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice prior to service of

process, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
A separate final judgment will be entered.
DONE this 2nd day of May, 2016.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE