Wade v. Valenza et al (INMATE 1), No. 1:2019cv00340 - Document 29 (M.D. Ala. 2020)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED that as follows: 1. the 28 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; 2. the Defs' motion to dismiss (doc. 24 ) is GRANTED due to the Plf's failure to properly exhaust the administrative remedy previously available to him at the Houston County jail before filing this action; 3. this case is DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with 42 U.S.C.1997e(a) for the Plf's failure to properly exhaust an administrative remedy before seeking relief from this Court; and 4. other than the assessed filing fee, no further costs are taxed. A separate Final Judgment will be entered. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 10/13/2020. (cwl, )

Download PDF
Wade v. Valenza et al (INMATE 1) Doc. 29 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION ROBERT WADE, AIS #181328, Plaintiff, v. SHERIFF DONALD VALENZA, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACT. NO. 1:19-cv-340-ECM (WO) OPINION and ORDER On September 21, 2020, the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation (doc. 28) to which no timely objections have been filed. After an independent review of the file and upon consideration of the Recommendation, it is ORDERED that as follows: 1. the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; 2. the Defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. 24) is GRANTED due to the Plaintiff’s failure to properly exhaust the administrative remedy previously available to him at the Houston County jail before filing this action; 3. this case is DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) for the Plaintiff’s failure to properly exhaust an administrative remedy before seeking relief from this Court; and 4. other than the assessed filing fee, no further costs are taxed. Dockets.Justia.com A separate Final Judgment will be entered. Done this 13th day of October, 2020. /s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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.