Bright v. Howell, 5:18-CV-355 (MTT). (2019)
Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20190725a00
Visitors: 5
Filed: Jul. 24, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 24, 2019
Summary: ORDER MARC T. TREADWELL , District Judge . United States Magistrate Judge Charles Weigle recommends granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss because the Plaintiff (1) failed to file the complaint within the statute of limitations; (2) failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; (3) failed to obtain a favorable termination of his criminal prosecution 1 pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), before filing his complaint; and (4) failed to bring his suit after
Summary: ORDER MARC T. TREADWELL , District Judge . United States Magistrate Judge Charles Weigle recommends granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss because the Plaintiff (1) failed to file the complaint within the statute of limitations; (2) failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; (3) failed to obtain a favorable termination of his criminal prosecution 1 pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), before filing his complaint; and (4) failed to bring his suit after t..
More
ORDER
MARC T. TREADWELL, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Charles Weigle recommends granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss because the Plaintiff (1) failed to file the complaint within the statute of limitations; (2) failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; (3) failed to obtain a favorable termination of his criminal prosecution1 pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), before filing his complaint; and (4) failed to bring his suit after the completion of his state criminal case.2 Doc. 10. The Plaintiff objected to the Recommendation twice by repeating the same factual claims made in his complaint, and the Defendants responded. Compare Doc. 8 with Docs. 13, 15; Doc. 14. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has considered the Plaintiff's objections and the Defendants' response, and has made a de novo determination of the portions of the Recommendation to which the Plaintiff objects. The Recommendation (Doc. 10) is ADOPTED and made the order of this Court. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 8) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The Plaintiff was advised that, insofar as he seeks habeas relief, he may file a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. 10 at 4 n.3.
2. Pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982), the Court cannot "enjoin a state criminal prosecution begun prior to the institution of the federal suit." The Defendants notified the Court in their response that the Younger abstention doctrine no longer applies because the Plaintiff has since been convicted in his state criminal case. Doc. 14 at 3. Accordingly, Heck applies.
Source: Leagle
