Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00912/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00912-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

JOSEPH STEPHEN WEST, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2:13-cv-912-WHA-WC 

 ) 

LEEPOSEY DANIELS, et al., ) 

 ) 

Defendants. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Before the court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (Doc. 18) in 

which Defendant seeks dismissal of the Complaint for failure to file within the limitations 

period as well as immunity of the named defendants. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend 

the Complaint that purports to “correct a mistake on the dates referenced in the 

complaint,” and “clarify the names of the defendants.” (Doc. 20). The court granted the 

motion in an order filed contemporaneously with this recommendation. Accordingly, it is 

the 

RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss (Doc. 18) be DENIED as MOOT and that the case be referred back to the 

undersigned for additional proceedings. 

It is further 

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the 

Recommendation on or before May 14, 2014. Any objections filed must specifically 

Case 2:13-cv-00912-WHA-WC Document 24 Filed 04/30/14 Page 1 of 2
2 

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which a party objects. 

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 Sec., 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 30th day of April, 2014. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:13-cv-00912-WHA-WC Document 24 Filed 04/30/14 Page 2 of 2