Dukes v. Shelby County Drug Enforcement Task Force et al, No. 2:2011cv04279 - Document 25 (N.D. Ala. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION-The court is of the opinion that the Magistrate Judge's findings are due to be and are hereby ADOPTED and his Recommendation is ACCEPTED. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 8/6/2012. (AVC)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED 2012 Aug-06 PM 03:06 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION KENNETH EARL DUKES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) SHELBY COUNTY DRUG ) ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCE, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) Case Number: 2:11-cv-4279-RDP MEMORANDUM OPINION In this case brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983, Plaintiff Kenneth Earl Dukes claims violations of his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments based upon the use of false information from a confidential informant that was used to obtain a warrant for Plaintiff s arrest and the posting of Plaintiff s name and photo on the Shelby County Sheriff s Department Most Wanted website. The Magistrate Judge entered a Report that includes findings and a recommendation that Defendants motions to dismiss (Docs. 10, 12, and 17) are due to be granted. (Doc. 23). Although the court granted Plaintiff an extension of time for filing objections to the Magistrate Judge s Report (see Doc. 24 and unnumbered margin entry dated 7/11/12), that deadline has now passed and no objections were filed. Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, the court is of the opinion that the Magistrate Judge s findings are due to be and are hereby ADOPTED and his Recommendation is ACCEPTED. Accordingly, Defendants respective motions to dismiss (Docs. 10, 12, and 17) are due to be granted. A separate final order will be entered. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of August, 2012. ___________________________________ R. DAVID PROCTOR 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.
