Jenkins v. Davis(MAG+)

Filing 25

ORDER that the 24 objection is hereby OVERRULED, the court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Defendant's motion to dismiss the claims against him in his official capacity is GRANTED. 2. To the extent the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant violated his Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable seizures, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. 3. The Defendant's motion to dismiss the conspiracy claims is GR ANTED. 4. The Defendant's motion to dismiss the state law claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence and false imprisonment is DENIED. 5. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 10/3/2011. (jg, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION ARTHUR L. JENKINS, Plaintiff, vs. BRENT DAVIS, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11cv307-WHA ORDER Upon an independent evaluation of this matter, including the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the Objection of Deputy Brent Davis (Doc. #24), and the entire file, the court agrees that the pro se Complaint, together with Plaintiff’s response, construed favorably to him, as the court is required to do, is sufficient to withstand the Motion to Dismiss and that the case should be allowed to proceed. Accordingly, the objection is hereby OVERRULED, the court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the claims against him in his official capacity is GRANTED. 2. To the extent the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant violated his Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable seizures, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. 3. The Defendant’s motion to dismiss the conspiracy claims is GRANTED. 4. The Defendant’s motion to dismiss the state law claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence and false imprisonment is DENIED. 5. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. DONE this 3rd day of October, 2011. /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?