Bailey v. Hendrickson et al (INMATE 2), No. 1:2018cv00543 - Document 6 (M.D. Ala. 2018)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER ADOPTING 5 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge as follows: (1) Plf's 1983 claims in II(A), II(B), and II(G)(ii) are DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and/or (iii); (2) Plf's 1983 claims in II(C), II(E), II(F), & II(G)(i) and (iii), and II(H) are DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii);(3) Plf's 1983 claims challenging events which occurred on or before 12/22/2004 (see II(D)), are DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as Plf failed to file the complaint regarding this allegation within the time prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations; (4) Plf's 1983 complaint, to the extent it challenges to the co nstitutionality of the convictions and/or sentences on which he is incarcerated (see II(I)), are DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as such claims are not properly before the court at this time; and (5) Plf's supplemental state law claims (see II(J)) are DISMISSED without prejudice; (6) This case is DISMISSED prior to service of process under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(iiii).. Signed by Honorable Judge Emily C. Marks on 11/7/18. (djy, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bailey v. Hendrickson et al (INMATE 2) Doc. 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION JAMES W. BAILEY, #200 587, Plaintiff, v. ALLEN HENDRICKSON, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-CV-543-ECM ) [WO] ) ) ) OPINION and ORDER Before the court is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge entered September 24, 2018. (Doc. # 5). There being no timely objections filed to the Recommendation, and based on an independent review of the record, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. # 5) is ADOPTED and it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims in ¶¶ II(A), II(B), and II(G)(ii) are DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and/or (iii); 2. Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims in ¶¶ II(C), II(E), II(F), & II(G)(i) and (iii), and II(H) are DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); 3. Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims challenging events which occurred on or before December 22, 2004 (see ¶ II(D)), are DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as Plaintiff failed to file the complaint regarding this allegation within the time prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations; 4. Plaintiff’s § 1983 complaint, to the extent it challenges to the constitutionality of the convictions and/or sentences on which he is incarcerated (see ¶ II(I)), are DISMISSED Dockets.Justia.com without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as such claims are not properly before the court at this time; and 5. Plaintiff’s supplemental state law claims (see ¶ II(J)) are DISMISSED without prejudice. 6. This case is DISMISSED prior to service of process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i–iii). A Final Judgment will be entered separately. DONE this 7th day of November, 2018. /s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
