Gant v. Johnson et al (INMATE 1)

Filing 5

ORDER adopting the 4 Recommendation; directing that Plaintiff's claims for declaratory relief with respect to orders/actions of the state court be DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); Plaintiff's claims against Judge Al Johnson be DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2)(B)(i) and (iii); Plaintiff's claims relative to the pending criminal char ge be DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Plaintiff's claims regarding actions which occurred on September 8, 2009 be DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C.  7; 1915(e) (2)(B)(i) as Plaintiff failed to file the complaint within the time prescribed by the applicable period of limitation; and this case be DISMISSED prior to service of process. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 11/29/2011. (br, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL SHANE GANT,
Plaintiff,
v.

JUDGE AL JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-949-WHA
)
[WO]
)
)
)
)
ORDER

The Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation (Doc. #4) in this case to which no
timely objections have been filed. After a review of the Recommendation, and after an
independent review of the entire record, the court finds that the Recommendation should be
adopted. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that:
1. The Recommendation (Doc. #4) of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED;
2. Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory relief with respect to orders/actions of the state
court are DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i);
3. Plaintiff’s claims against Judge Al Johnson are DISMISSED with prejudice prior
to service of process in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and
(iii);

4. Plaintiff’s claims relative to the pending criminal charge are DISMISSED without
prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii);
5. Plaintiff’s claims regarding actions which occurred on September 8, 2009 are
DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as
Plaintiff failed to file the complaint within the time prescribed by the applicable period of
limitation; and
6. This case is DISMISSED prior to service of process.
A separate judgment shall issue.
Done this 29th day of November, 2011.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2