Wilson v. Park et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 11/10/15. (SAC )

FILED
2015 Nov-10 PM 01:52
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHARLIE J. WILSON, JR.,
Plaintiff ,
v.
JIM NEIL PARK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)Case No. 2:14-cv-02357-WMA-JHE
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation on
October 16, 2015, recommending that this action filed pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for
failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc.
15). The plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation on October 30, 2015. (Doc. 16).
In his objections, the plaintiff argues that his claims are
not barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (Doc. 16 at 23). The plaintiff contends that he was first made aware of his
claims in November 2014, when a law library clerk “brought the
facts to his attention.” (Doc. 16 at 2). However, the plaintiff
claims in his complaint that the prosecution’s witnesses made false
statements during his trial in October 2009. (Doc. 1 at 11, 14).
Additionally, the plaintiff states in his complaint that A & E has
televised the episode of the murder investigation since March 2009.
(Doc. 1 at 14-15). Thus, the plaintiff knew or should have known by
2009 that his constitutional rights were allegedly violated. See

Calhoun v. Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., 705 F.2d 422,
425 (11th Cir. 1983). Nevertheless, even if the plaintiff’s claims
are not barred by the statute of limitations, the magistrate judge
concluded that the plaintiff’s claims are due to be dismissed on
additional grounds. (Doc. 15 at 5-12).
The plaintiff does not object to the magistrate judge’s
recommendation that his (1) conspiracy claims; (2) claims against
defendants Anderson and Mullens; and (3) state law claims are due
to be dismissed. (Doc. 16 at 3, 5, 6). Moreover, the plaintiff
merely

reasserts

his

claims

against

the

remaining

defendants

without any showing that he is entitled to relief. (Doc. 16 at 36).
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the
materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation and the objections thereto, the Court is of the opinion that
the magistrate judge’s report is due to be and is hereby ADOPTED
and the recommendation is ACCEPTED. Accordingly, the complaint is
due to be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failing
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A Final Judgment
will be entered.
DONE this 10th day of November, 2015.

_____________________________
WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2