Bailey v. Rogers et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 6

ORDER: It is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court that: 1. The plaintiff's 5 Objection to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed on 11/1/2013 is overruled; 2. The 4 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge entered on 10/24/20 13 is adopted; 3. Plaintiffs claims challenging events which occurred on July 18, 2011, are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as Plaintiff failed to file the complaint with regard to these allegations within the t ime prescribed by the applicable period of limitation. 4. Plaintiffs challenge to the constitutionality of the conviction and sentence under which he is currently incarcerated is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
67; 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as such claims are not properly before the court at this time; 5. This case be DISMISSED prior to service of process in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). Signed by Honorable Judge Truman M. Hobbs on 11/21/2013. (dmn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
RANDY EUGENE BAILEY, #169804,
Plaintiff,
v.
MIKE ROGERS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:13-cv-0671-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. #5) to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
filed on November 1, 2013 is overruled;
2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #4) entered on October 24,
2013 is adopted;
3. Plaintiffs claims challenging events which occurred on July 18, 2011, are
DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as Plaintiff failed to
file the complaint with regard to these allegations within the time prescribed by the
applicable period of limitation.
4. Plaintiff’s challenge to the constitutionality of the conviction and sentence under
which he is currently incarcerated is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as such claims are not properly before the court
at this time;

5. This case be DISMISSED prior to service of process in accordance with the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii).
DONE this the 21st day of November, 2013.
/s/ Truman M. Hobbs
TRUMAN M. HOBBS
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2