Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00263/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00263-0/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 

TIMOTHY LINDSEY BEARRY, #132358, ) 

) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

) 

 v. ) CASE NO. 2:16-CV-263-WHA 

) 

ALA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS ) 

RECORDS & TRANSPORTATION ) 

DIVISION, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 The plaintiff, a state inmate, initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action before this court 

on April 15, 2016. Subsequently, and prior to service of the complaint, the plaintiff filed 

a “Motion to Dismiss” in which he seeks dismissal of this case as the issue presented has 

been resolved. (Doc. 5) at 1. 

 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 finds 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: 

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

 2. This case be dismissed without prejudice. 

 3. No costs or fees be taxed herein. 

Case 2:16-cv-00263-WHA-WC Document 7 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 2
2 

It is further 

 ORDERED that on or before May 19, 2016 the plaintiff may file objections to the 

Recommendation. The plaintiff must specifically identify the factual findings and legal 

conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, or 

general objections will not be considered. Failure to file written objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions of 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a de novo determination by the District Court of legal and 

factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of the plaintiff to 

challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal 

conclusions 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); 11th CIR. R. 3-

1. See Stein v. Lanning 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). 

 DONE this 5th day of May, 2016. 

 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:16-cv-00263-WHA-WC Document 7 Filed 05/05/16 Page 2 of 2