Jones v. Sutton et al (INMATE 2), No. 2:2009cv01070 - Document 91 (M.D. Ala. 2014)

Court Description: JUDGMENT directing that, in accordance with the memorandum opinion entered this date, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court as follows: (1) Plaintiff Rocky Jones's objections (doc. no. 85 ) are overruled; (2) The United States Mag istrate Judge's recommendation (Doc. No. 85 ) is adopted; (3) Judgment is entered in favor of defendants Neil Bradley and Tony Harrison and against plaintiff Rocky Jones, with plaintiff Jones taking nothing by his complaint; further ORDERED tha t costs are taxed against plaintiff Jones, for which execution may issue. The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter thisdocument on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/27/14. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(scn, )

Download PDF
Jones v. Sutton et al (INMATE 2) Doc. 91 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION ROCKY JONES, Plaintiff, v. NEIL BRADLEY and TONY HARRISON, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09cv1070-MHT (WO) JUDGMENT In accordance with the memorandum opinion entered this date, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court as follows: (1) Plaintiff Rocky Jones’s objections (doc. no. 85) are overruled. (2) The United recommendation (Doc. No. States Magistrate Judge’s 85) is adopted. (3) Judgment is entered in favor of defendants Neil Bradley and Tony Harrison and against plaintiff Rocky Jones, with plaintiff Jones taking nothing by his complaint. Dockets.Justia.com It is further ORDERED that costs are taxed against plaintiff Jones, for which execution may issue. The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This case is closed. DONE, this the 27th day of October, 2014. /s/ Myron H. Thompson 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.