Cowan v. Bulls (INMATE 1)

Filing 8

ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court that: 1) The plf's 7 Objection to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is overruled; 2) The 6 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted; 3) To the extent that the plf seeks relief under 4 2 USC § 1983, the claims against dft Bulls are dismissed with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); 4) To the extent that the complaint contains a claim which challenges the constitut ionality of a conviction and sentence imposed upon the plf by the Circuit Court of Macon County, Alabama, the claim is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as this claim is not properly before the court at this time; 5) The plf's pendent state law claim is dismissed, as the court deems it inappropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim; and 6) This case is summarily dismissed in accordance with 28 USC § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). Signed by Honorable Judge Truman M. Hobbs on 11/15/2012. (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHNNY COWAN, #272014,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALBERT BULLS, III,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:12-cv-0898-TMH
WO

ORDER
After an independent review of the file, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE
of the court that:
1.

The plaintiff's objection (Doc. #7) filed on November 8, 2012 to the

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is overruled;
2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #6) filed on October 30, 2012
is adopted;
3. To the extent that the plaintiff seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the claims
against defendant Bulls are dismissed with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant
to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i);
4. To the extent that the complaint contains a claim which challenges the
constitutionality of a conviction and sentence imposed upon the plaintiff by the Circuit
Court of Macon County, Alabama, the claim is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to
the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as this claim is not properly before the court

at this time;
5. The plaintiff’s pendent state law claim is dismissed, as the court deems it
inappropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim; and
6. This case is summarily dismissed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).
DONE this the 15th day of November, 2012.

/s/ Truman M. Hobbs
TRUMAN M. HOBBS
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2