Head v. Baisden et al, No. 7:2014cv01788 - Document 19 (N.D. Ala. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND PARTIAL DISMISSAL ORDER-re: 13 Report and Recommendation. The court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge and ACCEPTS the recommendation. It is ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss of the City of Tuscaloosa 7 i s GRANTED as set out. The Motion to Dismiss of Cary Baisden 5 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set out. The Motion to Dismiss of Stephen D. Anderson 5 is GRANTED as set out. Pltf SHALL have twenty-one (21)days to file an amended complaint. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 3/9/2016. (AVC)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Head v. Baisden et al Doc. 19 FILED 2016 Mar-09 AM 09:33 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA WESTERN DIVISION ANTONIO HEAD, Plaintiff, v. CARY BAISDEN, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 7:14-cv-01788-HGD MEMORANDUM OPINION AND PARTIAL DISMISSAL ORDER On August 24, 2015, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation was entered and the parties were allowed therein fourteen (14) days in which to file objections to the recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. No objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation have been filed by Plaintiff or Defendants. After careful consideration of the record in this case and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge. The court further ACCEPTS the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that: Page 1 of 4 Dockets.Justia.com (1) the Motion to Dismiss of the City of Tuscaloosa is GRANTED as to Counts One, Two and Four and the claims asserted in these counts are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff’s right to file an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies noted in the Report and Recommendation; (2) the Motion to Dismiss of the City of Tuscaloosa is GRANTED as to the claims asserted in Counts Three, Five and Six and such claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (3) the Motion to Dismiss of the City of Tuscaloosa is GRANTED as to the claim asserted in Count Seven, to the extent that such a claim is construed as being made pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and such claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff’s right to file an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies noted in the Report and Recommendation; (4) the Motion to Dismiss of the City of Tuscaloosa is GRANTED as to the claim asserted in Count Seven, to the extent that such a claim is construed as being made pursuant to state law, and such claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (5) the Motion to Dismiss of the City of Tuscaloosa is GRANTED as to all claims for punitive damages and such claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; Page 2 of 4 (6) the Motion to Dismiss of Cary Baisden is GRANTED as to any claims against him in his official capacity and such claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (7) the Motion to Dismiss of Cary Baisden is DENIED as to the claims asserted in Counts One, Two, Three, Four, Five and Six; (8) the Motion to Dismiss of Stephen D. Anderson is GRANTED as to any claims against him in his official capacity and such claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (9) the Motion to Dismiss of Stephen D. Anderson is GRANTED as to the claims asserted in Counts One and Six and such claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (10) the Motion to Dismiss of Stephen D. Anderson is GRANTED as to the claim asserted in Count Seven, to the extent that such a claim is construed as being made pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and such claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff’s right to file an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies noted in the Report and Recommendation; (11) the Motion to Dismiss of Stephen D. Anderson is GRANTED as to the claim asserted in Count Seven, to the extent that such a claim is construed as being Page 3 of 4 made pursuant to state law, and such claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and (12) the Motion to Dismiss of Stephen D. Anderson is GRANTED as to the claims asserted in Counts Two, Three, Four and Five and such claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff’s right to file an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies noted in the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff SHALL have twenty-one (21) days from the date of entry of this Memorandum Opinion and Partial Dismissal Order to file an amended complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of March, 2016. ___________________________________ R. DAVID PROCTOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 4 of 4
]]>
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.
