Howard v. Scruggs et al (INMATE 1)

Filing 19

ORDER: it is ORDERED as follows: 1) The 7 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED, and Mr. Howard-Bey's 8 , 9 , 12 , & 13 objections to the Recommendation are OVERRULED; 2) Mr. Howard-Bey's claims seeking intervention by this court in his pending state criminal cases are DISMISSED without prejudice in accordance with the Younger abstention doctrine; 3) Mr. Howard-Bey's claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the orders setting bail in his criminal cases are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as such claims are not properly before the court in this action; 4) Mr. Howard-Bey's Miranda claim is DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the directives of 28 US C 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); 5) Mr. Howard-Bey's 2 motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED as he has failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and 6) This case is DISMISSED prior to service of process pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 10/10/2017. (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

DARON DURANE HOWARDBEY, #159809
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID SCRUGGS, WONDA
CRAFT, and CHRIS BYRD,
Defendants.

CASE NO. 2:17-CV-482-WKW

ORDER
Before the court is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. #
7.) Based on an independent review of the record and upon due consideration of
Mr. Howard-Bey’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (Docs. #
8, 9, 12, 13), it is ORDERED as follows:
1.

The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 7) is

ADOPTED, and Mr. Howard-Bey’s objections to the Recommendation (Docs. # 8,
9, 1 12, 13) are OVERRULED;

1

Document # 9 is titled as Mr. Howard-Bey’s “Notice Of Appeal[].” Because the
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is not a final judgment and thus is not directly
appealable, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291, Mr. Howard-Bey’s notice is construed as an objection to the
Recommendation.

2.

Mr. Howard-Bey’s claims seeking intervention by this court in his

pending state criminal cases are DISMISSED without prejudice in accordance with
the Younger abstention doctrine;
3.

Mr. Howard-Bey’s claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief

from the orders setting bail in his criminal cases are DISMISSED without
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as such claims are not properly
before the court in this action;
4.

Mr. Howard-Bey’s Miranda claim is DISMISSED with prejudice in

accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i);
5.

Mr. Howard-Bey’s motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. # 2) is

DENIED as he has failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits;
and
6.

This case is DISMISSED prior to service of process pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii).
A final judgment will be entered separately.
DONE this 10th day of October, 2017.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2