Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00401/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00401-0/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 DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

KAREEM YOUNG, #222970, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-401-TMH

) [WO]

)

CHRISTOPHER GORDY, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Kareem Young [“Young”], a state inmate, filed the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

on June 10, 2013. In this complaint, Young alleges that the defendants have denied him

participation in the work release program. Subsequently, and prior to service of the

complaint, Young filed a document in which he seeks dismissal of this case (Doc. No. 4). 

The court therefore construes this document 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 complaint has not been served on the

defendants, the court discerns that this case should be dismissed without prejudice. Rule

41(a)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

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

plaintiff’s motion to dismiss be granted and that this case be dismissed without prejudice. 

It is further 

Case 2:13-cv-00401-TMH-CSC Document 6 Filed 07/12/13 Page 1 of 2
ORDERED that on or before July 26, 2013, the plaintiff 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 12 day of July, 2013. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:13-cv-00401-TMH-CSC Document 6 Filed 07/12/13 Page 2 of 2