Roberts v. Jones et al (INMATE2)
ORDER overruling plaintiff's 17 and 21 Objections; adopting 14 and 18 Reports and Recommendations; dismissing this case with prejudice prior to service of process. Signed by Honorable W. Harold Albritton, III on 10/31/2008. (cc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION MICHAEL DEWAYNE ROBERTS, #143289, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) JAY JONES, et al., ) ) Defendants. )
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:08cv599-WHA (WO)
ORDER This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #14), filed on September 19, 2008, the Supplemental Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #18), filed on October 2, 2008, and the objections to both (Docs. #17 and 21), filed by the Plaintiff. Upon an independent evaluation and de novo review of the file, the court finds the objections to be without merit, and they hereby overruled. The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the Complaint filed in this case is barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff's contention that he was entitled to equitable tolling of the limitation period until he filed a "verified claim for damages" on the Defendants on October 10, 2006, is without merit. Also, while the Plaintiff asserts in his latest objections that he was arrested in March, 2008, and had surgeries in December, 2005, and April, 2006, he has not demonstrated how these events prevented him from filing his § 1983 claim within the applicable two-year limitation period, much less how such circumstances were extraordinary as to entitle
him to equitable tolling. Therefore, the court adopts the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and the Supplemental Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process. DONE this 31st day of October, 2008.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton W. HAROLD ALBRITTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?