Dollar v. Russell County Sheriff's Office et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 14

ORDER Considering and Ordering as follows: (1) plf's 4 & 9 objections be and the same are hereby OVERRULED; (2) the 3 & 6 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Mag Judge be and the same are hereby ADOPTED, APPROVED and AFFIRMED; (3) This cas e be and the same is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because Plaintiff failed to file the complaint with regard to his current allegations within the time prescribed by the applicable limitation period. Signed by Honorable Judge Ira De Ment on 6/17/11. (djy, )

Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION THOMAS RICHIE DOLLAR, JR., Plaintiff, v. RUSSELL COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 3:11-CV-336-ID (WO) ORDER Before the court are the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, (Doc. #3), the Plaintiff’s Objection, (Doc. #4), the Supplemental Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, (Doc. #6), and the Plaintiff's subsequent Objection, (Doc. #9). Having conducted a de novo determination of those portions of Magistrate's recommendations to which objections are made, it is CONSIDERED and ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff’s objections, (Doc. #4 and Doc. #9), be and the same are hereby OVERRULED; 2. The recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, (Doc. #3 and Doc. #6), be and the same are hereby ADOPTED, APPROVED and AFFIRMED 1 ; 1 The Court notes that the Plaintiff's complaint was filed about a year after the applicable limitations period had expired. The Magistrate's Supplemental Recommendation incorrectly stated that it was filed more than two years after the statute of limitations expired. (Doc. #6 at 45). The misstatement appears to be inadvertent and it does not affect the Court's decision to adopt the Magistrate's recommendations. 3. This case be and the same is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because Plaintiff failed to file the complaint with regard to his current allegations within the time prescribed by the applicable limitation period. DONE this the 17th day of June, 2011. /s/ Ira DeMent 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?