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, )

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