Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00297/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00297-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FORTHE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

DANNY LAMAR ADDIE, #152701, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

vs. ) CASE NO. 2:12-cv-297-WHA 

 ) 

WILLIAM W. WYNN, JR., et al., ) (WO) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

ORDER

 This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #34), 

entered on April 29, 2015, and the Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. #36), filed on May 14, 2015. 

 The court has conducted an independent evaluation and de novo review of the file in this 

case. Plaintiff makes four objections to the Recommendation. 

 First, the Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge abused his discretion by denying 

Plaintiff’s interrogatories without properly filed objections from the Defendants. The objection, 

however, is late. The ruling that denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to 

Interrogatories was entered on July 17, 2012, and the Plaintiff had fourteen (14) days thereafter 

to file an objection to the ruling. See Rule 72(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. Therefore, the current objection 

is untimely. 

 Second, the Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge improperly held that the 

Defendants had met their evidentiary burden and demonstrated an absence of any genuine 

dispute of material fact. Plaintiff’s fourth objection is a variation on his second. As to both of 

these, the court has considered the Magistrate Judge’s explanation shown on pages 14-16 of the 

Case 2:12-cv-00297-WHA-TFM Document 40 Filed 07/01/15 Page 1 of 2
Recommendation, and the court agrees with his findings. Therefore, these two objections are 

found to be without merit. 

 Finally, the Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that the Plaintiff 

failed to create a genuine dispute whether sex offenders are similarly situated to non-sex 

offenders. The question presented here, however, concerns the grounds for parole, not the way 

inmates are treated in prison. In denying Plaintiff parole, the Defendants evaluated the relevant 

factors such as the inmate’s record, offense, potential for future violence, community attitude, 

home and job plan, and any other relevant factors presented to the Board. See pages 9 and 15 of 

the Recommendation. 

 For the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 

 1. Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. 

 2. The court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

 3. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

 4. The costs are taxed against the Plaintiff. 

 DONE this 1st day of July, 2015. 

 /s/ W. Harold Albritton 

 W. HAROLD ALBRITTON 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:12-cv-00297-WHA-TFM Document 40 Filed 07/01/15 Page 2 of 2