JACKSON v. STATE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 2:14cv18-MHT(WO). (2014)
Court: District Court, M.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20140402708
Visitors: 14
Filed: Apr. 01, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 01, 2014
Summary: ORDER MYRON H. THOMPSON, District Judge. On February 19, 2014, the magistrate judge filed a recommendation in this case to which no timely objections have been filed. Upon an independent and de novo review of the file in this case and upon consideration of the recommendation of the magistrate judge, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 16) is adopted and that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B): 1. Plaintiff's 1983 claims against defendant Ala
Summary: ORDER MYRON H. THOMPSON, District Judge. On February 19, 2014, the magistrate judge filed a recommendation in this case to which no timely objections have been filed. Upon an independent and de novo review of the file in this case and upon consideration of the recommendation of the magistrate judge, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 16) is adopted and that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B): 1. Plaintiff's 1983 claims against defendant Alab..
More
ORDER
MYRON H. THOMPSON, District Judge.
On February 19, 2014, the magistrate judge filed a recommendation in this case to which no timely objections have been filed. Upon an independent and de novo review of the file in this case and upon consideration of the recommendation of the magistrate judge, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 16) is adopted and that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B):
1. Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against defendant Alabama Department of Corrections are dismissed. Because this defendant is still a party to at least one other claim, it is not terminated.
2. Plaintiff's Title VII claims against defendants Thomas and Forniss are dismissed. Because these two defendants are still parties to other claims, they are not terminated.
3. Plaintiff's § 1983 First Amendment claim included within Count Three is dismissed without prejudice as redundant to that in Count Two.
4. This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings on plaintiff's remaining claims.
Source: Leagle
