Feagin v. 22nd Judicial Circuit Drug Task Force et al (INMATE 1)

Filing 27

ORDERED that (1) The 26 Recommendation is ADOPTED; (2) The motion to dismiss (Doc. # 17 ) filed by the 22nd Judicial Circuit Drug Task Force is GRANTED; (3) The claims against the 22nd Judicial Circuit Drug Task Force are DISMISSED with prejudice and Defendant 22nd Judicial Circuit Drug Task Force is DISMISSED as a party to this cause of action;(4) Defendant Jacksons motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 12 ) is GRANTED regarding any claims for injunctive or eclaratory relief and these requests for rel ief are DISMISSED without prejudice in accordance with the Younger abstention doctrine; (5) Defendant Jacksons motion to dismiss (Doc. # 12 ) is DENIED to the extent it addresses Plaintiffs § 1983 claim for damages; (6) Plaintiffs damages claim against Defendant Jackson is STAYED pending resolution of the related state criminal case proceedings; and (7) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to administratively CLOSE this case. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 2/10/2016. (kh, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
JOSHUA WAYNE FEAGIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
22ND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT DRUG
TASK FORCE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-717-WKW

ORDER
On January 20, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation to which no
timely objections have been filed. (Doc. # 26.) Upon an independent review of the file
and upon consideration of the Recommendation, it is ORDERED that
(1)

The Recommendation is ADOPTED;

(2)

The motion to dismiss (Doc. # 17) filed by the 22nd Judicial Circuit Drug

Task Force is GRANTED;
(3)

The claims against the 22nd Judicial Circuit Drug Task Force are

DISMISSED with prejudice and Defendant 22nd Judicial Circuit Drug Task Force is
DISMISSED as a party to this cause of action;

(4)

Defendant Jackson’s motion to dismiss (Doc. # 12) is GRANTED

regarding any claims for injunctive or declaratory relief and these requests for relief are
DISMISSED without prejudice in accordance with the Younger abstention doctrine;
(5)

Defendant Jackson’s motion to dismiss (Doc. # 12) is DENIED to the

extent it addresses Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for damages;
(6)

Plaintiff’s damages claim against Defendant Jackson is STAYED pending

resolution of the related state criminal case proceedings; and
(7)

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to administratively CLOSE this case.

DONE this 10th day of February, 2016.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE