Dixon v. Alabama Board of Pardon and Paroles et al (INMATE 2), No. 2:2022cv00179 - Document 5 (M.D. Ala. 2022)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER: On 5/11/2022, the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation (doc. 4 ) to which no timely objections have been filed. Upon an independent review of the file and upon consideration of the Recommendation, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. 2. The Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii) as this Defendan t is absolutely immune from suit. 3. The Plaintiff's due process claims challenging the fundamental legality of his incarceration as a parole violator are DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as such claims currently pro vide no basis for relief. 4. The Plaintiff's pendent state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice as the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims. 5. This case is DISMISSED prior to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii). A separate Final Judgment will be entered. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 6/14/2022. (dmn, )

Download PDF
Dixon v. Alabama Board of Pardon and Paroles et al (INMATE 2) Doc. 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION WILLIAM D. DIXON, #234960, Plaintiff, v. ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACT. NO. 2:22-cv-179-ECM (WO) MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER On May 11, 2022, the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation (doc. 4) to which no timely objections have been filed. Upon an independent review of the file and upon consideration of the Recommendation, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. 2. The Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii) as this Defendant is absolutely immune from suit. 3. The Plaintiff’s due process claims challenging the fundamental legality of his incarceration as a parole violator are DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as such claims currently provide no basis for relief. 4. The Plaintiff’s pendent state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice as the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims. Dockets.Justia.com 5. This case is DISMISSED prior to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii). A separate Final Judgment will be entered. DONE this 14th day of June, 2022. /s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS CHIEF 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.