MITCHELL v. WYNNE, (WO). (2015)
Court: District Court, M.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20150324993
Visitors: 18
Filed: Mar. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 23, 2015
Summary: ORDER W. HAROLD ALBRITTON , Senior District Judge . This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #41), and the Plaintiff's Objection (Doc. #42). Following an independent evaluation and de novo review of this case, the court finds as follows: This is a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action in which the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the directives of various state statutes during the parole consideration process which resulted in the decision to den
Summary: ORDER W. HAROLD ALBRITTON , Senior District Judge . This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #41), and the Plaintiff's Objection (Doc. #42). Following an independent evaluation and de novo review of this case, the court finds as follows: This is a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action in which the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the directives of various state statutes during the parole consideration process which resulted in the decision to deny..
More
ORDER
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON, Senior District Judge.
This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #41), and the Plaintiff's Objection (Doc. #42). Following an independent evaluation and de novo review of this case, the court finds as follows:
This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the directives of various state statutes during the parole consideration process which resulted in the decision to deny him parole. He also challenges the constitutionality of the parole consideration process and the decision to deny him parole. The Complaint also references due process, cruel and unusual punishment, the ex post facto clause, free speech, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and state law claims. This court determines that the Magistrate Judge has appropriately analyzed all claims and has come to the correct conclusions.
Therefore, the Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED, the court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby
ORDERED that the Defendants' motions for summary judgment are GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Source: Leagle
