King v. Huntsville Police Department et al
ORDER-re: Report and Recommendation 7 . The court hereby ADOPTS the Report and ACCEPTS the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. It is ORDERED that all of Pltf's claims in this action, except the Fourth Amendment claim against Officer K. Wooden, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that the Fourth Amendment claim against Dft Wooden is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 9/13/2016. (AVC)
2016 Sep-13 AM 09:07
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
ROBERT E. KING,
HUNTSVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, }
Case No.: 5:16-cv-00750-RDP-JEO
On August 24, 2016, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 7) was
entered and Plaintiff was allowed therein fourteen (14) days in which to file objections to the
recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. No objections have been filed.1
After careful consideration of the record in this case and the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation, the court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge and
ACCEPTS the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. It is therefore ORDERED that all of
Plaintiff’s claims in this action, except the Fourth Amendment claim against Officer K. Wooden
identified in the Report, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1). It is further ORDERED that the Fourth Amendment claim against Defendant
Wooden is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings
Plaintiff sent a letter to the court on September 2, 2016. The letter states that Plaintiff has an appeal
pending before the Alabama Supreme Court and inquires whether the court will require the Huntsville Police
Department to release a video of the stop at issue in this action. (Doc. # 8). Plaintiff’s letter contains no objections
to the Report, as it does not point to any purported incorrect finding of fact or recommendation of law in the Report.
(Doc. # 7 at 13 (“Objections should specifically identify all findings of fact and recommendations to which
objection is made and the specific basis for objection.”)). Plaintiff’s inquiry about the video is premature because
the complaint has not been served upon Defendants.
DONE and ORDERED this September 13, 2016.
R. DAVID PROCTOR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?