Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_14-cv-02357/USCOURTS-alnd-2_14-cv-02357-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLIE J. WILSON, JR., )

 )

Plaintiff , )

 )

v. )Case No. 2:14-cv-02357-WMA-JHE

 )

JIM NEIL PARK, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation on

October 16, 2015, recommending that this action filed pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983 be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for

failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc.

15). The plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation on October 30, 2015. (Doc. 16). 

In his objections, the plaintiff argues that his claims are

not barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (Doc. 16 at 2-

3). The plaintiff contends that he was first made aware of his

claims in November 2014, when a law library clerk “brought the

facts to his attention.” (Doc. 16 at 2). However, the plaintiff

claims in his complaint that the prosecution’s witnesses made false

statements during his trial in October 2009. (Doc. 1 at 11, 14). 

Additionally, the plaintiff states in his complaint that A & E has

televised the episode of the murder investigation since March 2009. 

(Doc. 1 at 14-15). Thus, the plaintiff knew or should have known by

2009 that his constitutional rights were allegedly violated. See

FILED

 2015 Nov-10 PM 01:52

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:14-cv-02357-WMA-JHE Document 17 Filed 11/10/15 Page 1 of 2
Calhoun v. Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., 705 F.2d 422,

425 (11th Cir. 1983). Nevertheless, even if the plaintiff’s claims

are not barred by the statute of limitations, the magistrate judge

concluded that the plaintiff’s claims are due to be dismissed on

additional grounds. (Doc. 15 at 5-12). 

The plaintiff does not object to the magistrate judge’s

recommendation that his (1) conspiracy claims; (2) claims against

defendants Anderson and Mullens; and (3) state law claims are due

to be dismissed. (Doc. 16 at 3, 5, 6). Moreover, the plaintiff

merely reasserts his claims against the remaining defendants

without any showing that he is entitled to relief. (Doc. 16 at 3-

6). 

Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the

materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation and the objections thereto, the Court is of the opinion that

the magistrate judge’s report is due to be and is hereby ADOPTED

and the recommendation is ACCEPTED. Accordingly, the complaint is

due to be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failing

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A Final Judgment

will be entered.

DONE this 10th day of November, 2015.

_____________________________

WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 2:14-cv-02357-WMA-JHE Document 17 Filed 11/10/15 Page 2 of 2