Jacobs v. Huntsville Police Department et al

Filing 14

ORDER -re: R&R 12 . The report is hereby ADOPTED and the recommendation is ACCEPTED. The court ORDERES that Pltf's claims, with the exception of his Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against dft Curtis, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. T he court further ORDERS that Pltf's Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against dft Curtis is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Pltf's motion for an extension of time 13 is DENIED. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 2/27/2017. (AVC)

FILED
2017 Feb-27 AM 09:52
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
ROBERT LEE JACOBS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
HUNTSVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 5:16-cv-00629-RDP-JEO

ORDER
The Magistrate Judge entered a report on January 27, 2017, recommending all of
Plaintiff’s claims, with the exception of his Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against
defendant Curtis, be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failing
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. 12). The Magistrate Judge further
recommended Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against defendant Curtis be
referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Id. at 11). The Magistrate Judge
advised Plaintiff of his right to file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days. Id. at
11-12).
On February 10, 2017, Plaintiff moved for a thirty (30) day extension of time “to allow
[his] criminal charge to be judged, and to use [that] judgment as evidence to present to the
courts.” (Doc. 13). In his report, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff’s malicious
prosecution claim against Investigator K. Browning is due to be dismissed because Plaintiff has
not shown the criminal prosecution instituted against him for robbery on March 18, 2016, has
been terminated in his favor. (Doc. 12 at 10). Therefore, it appears Plaintiff seeks additional
time for the adjudication of the charge against him in order to properly support his claim for

malicious prosecution. However, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of this claim
without prejudice. (Doc. 12 at 11). As such, Plaintiff may present his malicious prosecution
claim again, provided it is timely and legally sufficient. Upon due consideration, Plaintiff’s
motion for an extension of time, (doc. 13), is DENIED.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file,
including the report and recommendation, the Magistrate Judge’s report is hereby ADOPTED
and the recommendation is ACCEPTED. The court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s claims, with the
exception of his Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against defendant Curtis, are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against defendant Curtis is
REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
DONE and ORDERED this February 27, 2017.

_________________________________
R. DAVID PROCTOR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2