Pearson v. Hartley et al (INMATE 1)

Filing 9

ORDER: This cause is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge entered on 1/11/2018 (Doc. 8 ). There being no timely objection to the Recommendation, and after review of the file, the Recommendation is ADOPTED, and it is h ereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The plaintiffs claims against John Hartley are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 2. The plaintiffs claims against District Attorney Ellen Brooks and the Attorney General for t he State of Alabama are DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii). 3. The plaintiffs challenges to the constitutionality of the robbery convictions imposed upon him by the Circuit Court of Mo ntgomery County, Alabama on 3/3/1997 are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as such claims are not properly before the court in this cause of action. 4. This case is DISMISSED prior to service of process in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii) and (iii). A separate Final Judgment will be entered in accordance with this order. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 2/7/2018. (dmn, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
CLINTON JAMES PEARSON, JR.,
AIS #155536,

)
)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-738-WHA
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN HARTLEY, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This cause is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
entered on January 11, 2018 (Doc. #8).

There being no timely objection to the

Recommendation, and after review of the file, the Recommendation is ADOPTED, and it
is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The plaintiff’s claims against John Hartley are DISMISSED with prejudice
pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
2. The plaintiff’s claims against District Attorney Ellen Brooks and the Attorney
General for the State of Alabama are DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the
directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii).
3. The plaintiff’s challenges to the constitutionality of the robbery convictions
imposed upon him by the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama on March 3,
1997 are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as such claims are not properly before the court in this cause of
action.
4. This case is DISMISSED prior to service of process in accordance with the
directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii) and (iii).
A separate Final Judgment will be entered in accordance with this order.
DONE this 7th day of February, 2018.

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

2