Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-01088/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-01088-1/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 DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ANTONIO ORLANDER JERIDO, )

AIS #169480, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-CV-1088-ID

)

EARL REEVES, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On March 11, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion to assist/motion to inform in which

he seeks to dismiss commissioner Earl Reeves as a defendant because he has no evidence

Reeves acted in violation of his constitutional rights. Court Doc. No. 65 at 1. The court

therefore construes the motion to assist/motion to inform as a motion to dismiss.

Upon consideration of the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, the court concludes that this

motion is due to be granted. Furthermore, since the plaintiff concedes he cannot demonstrate

Earl Reeves was in any way involved with the actions about which he complains, the court

concludes that the claims against this individual should be dismissed with prejudice. 

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

1. The plaintiff's motion to dismiss be GRANTED.

2. The plaintiff's claims against Earl Reeves be dismissed with prejudice. 

3. Earl Reeves be dismissed as a party to this cause of action.

4. This case, with respect to the plaintiff’s claims against the remaining defendants,

Case 2:09-cv-01088-MEF-SRW Document 67 Filed 03/15/10 Page 1 of 2
be referred back to the undersigned for additional proceedings.

It is further 

ORDERED that on or before March 29, 2010 the parties may file objections to the

Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive

or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised

that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the

District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the

District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d

33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en

banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed

down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

Done, this 15th day of March, 2010.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:09-cv-01088-MEF-SRW Document 67 Filed 03/15/10 Page 2 of 2