Smith v. Wynn, et al (INMATE2), No. 2:2009cv00006 - Document 14 (M.D. Ala. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER that: 11 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; that Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for monetary damages against Defendants Wynn, McGill, and Weatherly are DISMISSED with prejudice, prior to service of p rocess; that Plaintiff's challenge to Defendants decision to deny him parole and his request for injunctive relief, construed as a request for a new parole consideration hearing, is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Truman M. Hobbs on 3/2/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(cb, )

Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION DANNY LEE SMITH, #111 978, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM WYNN, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 2:09cv6-TMH OPINION AND ORDER The Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. #11) in this case to which no timely objections have been filed. After a review of the Recommendation, and after an independent review of the entire record, the Court believes that the Recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the RECOMMENDATION (Doc. #11) of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. Plaintiff s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for monetary damages against Defendants Wynn, McGill, and Weatherly are DISMISSED with prejudice, prior to service of process, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) because Defendants, as members of Alabama s Board of Pardons and Parole, are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity from suits requesting damages based on their decisions in the parole consideration process. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff s challenge to Defendants decision to deny him parole and his request for injunctive relief, construed as a request for a new parole consideration hearing, is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Done this 2nd day of March, 2009. /s/ Truman M. Hobbs 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.