Abrams v. Daughtry

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING the 9 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. It is ORDERED that, this action be DISMISSED without prejudice as malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915A(b)(1), or in the alternative, that it be DISMISSED without p rejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1), and that the action be counted as strike for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 8/5/2016. Copy mailed to Plaintiff. Copy of R&R, Order & Judgment mailed to ADOC. (tgw)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION RODERICK DEWAYNE ABRAMS, 220360,: Plaintiff, : vs. : CHARLES EDWARD DAUGHTRY, : Defendant. CIVIL ACTION 15-583-WS-C : ORDER After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. It is ORDERED that, this action be DISMISSED without prejudice as malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915A(b)(1), or in the alternative, that it be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1), and that the action be counted as strike for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Clerk is DIRECTED to send to the Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections a copy of the report and recommendation recommending the dismissal of this action, this order adopting the report and recommendation, and the judgment dismissing this action. DONE this 5th day of August, 2016. s/WILLIAM H. STEELE CHIEF 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?