Pickett v. Montgomery County Jail et al (INMATE 1), No. 2:2012cv00986 - Document 7 (M.D. Ala. 2013)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER (1) ADOPTING 5 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Mag Judge; (2) the claims against defendants the Montgomery County Jail and the Montgomery County Nurse Station be and are hereby DISMISSED pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1 915(e)(2)(B)(i) as these defendants are not legal entities subject to suit; (3) This case be and is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as the plaintiff failed to file the complaint within the time prescribed by the applicable period of limitation. Signed by Honorable Judge Truman M. Hobbs on 1/22/13. (djy, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD CHARLES PICKETT, AIS # 182000, Plaintiff, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIV. ACT. NO. 2:12cv986-TMH (WO) OPINION and ORDER On December 12, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this case to which no timely objections have been filed. (Doc. # 5). Upon an independent review of the file in this case and upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows that: 1. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge be and is hereby ADOPTED; 2. The claims against Defendants the Montgomery County Jail and the Montgomery County Nurse Station be and are hereby DISMISSED pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as these defendants are not legal entities subject to suit; 3. This case be and is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as the plaintiff failed to file the complaint within the time prescribed by the applicable period of limitation. Done this the 22nd day of January, 2013. /s Truman M. Hobbs TRUMAN M. HOBBS SENIOR 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.