Dardy v. Hughes (INMATE 2)

Filing 14

ORDERED as follows: 1) The 11 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; 2) Plf's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as time-barred under 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); 3) Plf's 1983 claims are DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 USC 191 5(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii); 4) Plf's challenge to the constitutionality of his conviction and/or sentence is DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); and 5) This case is DISMISSED prior to service of process under 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii), and (iii). Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 3/22/2017. (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
CHARLIE FRANK DARDY,
#116706,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. HUGHES,
Defendant.

CHARLIE FRANK DARDY,
#116706,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. HUGHES and
KISHA ABERCROMBIE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-842-WKW
[WO]

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-897-WKW
[WO]

ORDER
Before the court is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. # 11.)
There being no timely objection filed to the Recommendation, and based on a review
of the record, it is ORDERED as follows:

1.

The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 11) is

ADOPTED;
2.

Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as time-barred under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i);
3.

Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are DISMISSED with prejudice under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii);
4.

Plaintiff’s challenge to the constitutionality of his conviction and/or

sentence is DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); and
5.

This case is DISMISSED prior to service of process under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii), and (iii).
A final judgment will be entered separately.
DONE this 22nd day of March, 2017.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2