Morrissey v. Christian et al (INMATE 1)
Filing
10
JUDGMENT: the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court as follows: (1) The plf's 5 objections are overruled; (2) The US Magistrate Judge's 4 recommendation is adopted and this case is dismissed in its entirety as set forth in the rest o f this judgment; (3) The plf's challenge to the constitutionality of her arrest and her claim regarding the lack of a post-arrest investigation by law enforcement officials are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I) as the plf failed to file the complaint before the statute of limitations expired and because the latter claim provides no basis for relief; (4) To the extent the plf presents a claim of malicious prosecution with respect to her con viction, this claim is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as this claim is not one on which relief can currently be granted; (5) The plf's claims challenging the constitutionality of her con viction are dismissed without prejudice in accordance with the directives of 28 USC § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), as such claims are must be pursued in a habeas-corpus petition, not a 42 USC § 1983 civil action; further ORDERED that costs are taxed against the plf, for which execution may issue; DIRECTING the clerk to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 FRCP; This case is closed. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/31/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist) (wcl, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION
DECKRICE L. MORRISSEY,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTOPHER CHRISTIAN,
et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:15cv500-MHT
(WO)
JUDGMENT
In accordance with the memorandum opinion entered
this date, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the
court as follows:
(1) The
plaintiff's
objections
(doc.
no.
5)
are
overruled.
(2) The
United
States
Magistrate
Judge's
recommendation (doc. no. 4) is adopted and this case is
dismissed in its entirety as set forth in the rest of
this judgment.
(3) The
plaintiff’s
challenge
to
the
constitutionality of her arrest and her claim regarding
the
lack
of
enforcement
pursuant
a
post-arrest
officials
to
the
are
investigation
dismissed
provisions
with
of
28
by
law
prejudice
U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(I) as the plaintiff failed to file the
complaint before the statute of limitations expired and
because the latter claim provides no basis for relief.
(4)
of
To the extent the plaintiff presents a claim
malicious
prosecution
with
respect
to
her
conviction, this claim is dismissed without prejudice
pursuant
to
the
provisions
of
28
U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as this claim is not one on which
relief can currently be granted.
(5)
The
plaintiff’s
constitutionality
of
claims
her
challenging
conviction
are
the
dismissed
without prejudice in accordance with the directives of
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), as such claims are must
be pursued in a habeas-corpus petition, not a 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 civil action.
It is further ORDERED that costs are taxed against
the plaintiff, for which execution may issue.
2
The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter this
document
on
the
civil
pursuant
to
Rule
58
of
docket
the
as
a
Federal
final
Rules
judgment
of
Procedure.
This case is closed.
DONE, this the 31st day of August, 2015.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Civil
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?