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, )

Download PDF
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

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?