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, )

Download PDF
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

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?