Orr v. Bentley et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 7

ORDER directing as follows: (1) plf's 5 Objection to Report and Recommendation is OVERRULED; (2) adopting 4 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; (3) Plf's claims against the named Defendants challenging events which occu rred on or before 2/16/14 are DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) (i) as Plf failed to file the complaint regarding these allegations within the time prescribed by the applicable period of limitation; (4) The 1983 claims presente d against Defs Bentley and Strange, to the extent they are not barred by the statute of limitations, are DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); (5) Plf's challenge to the validity of his 1982 conviction and/or sentence fo r murder is DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), as such claims are not properly before the court at this time; (6) This case is DISMISSED prior to service of process under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-ii). Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 5/25/2016. (djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORTHE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

WILLIE ORR, #132 726,
Plaintiff,
vs.
GOVERNOR ROBERT BENTLEY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:16-cv-119-WHA
(WO)

ORDER
This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #4),
entered on April 15, 2016, and the Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. #5), filed on April 27, 2016.
The court has conducted an independent evaluation and de novo review of this case and,
having done so, finds the objection to be without merit. The court agrees with the analysis and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s objection is OVERRULED.
2. The court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
3. Plaintiff’s claims against the named Defendants challenging events which occurred on
or before February 16, 2014 are DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)
as Plaintiff failed to file the complaint regarding these allegations within the time prescribed by
the applicable period of limitation.
4. The § 1983 claims presented against Defendants Bentley and Strange, to the extent
they are not barred by the statute of limitations, are DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

5. Plaintiff’s challenge to the validity of his 1982 conviction and/or sentence for murder
is DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), as such claims are not
properly before the court at this time.
6. This case is DISMISSED prior to service of process under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i-ii).
DONE this 25th day of May, 2016.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE