Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00342/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00342-4/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

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RODNEY C . DEAN , # 244759, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:07-CV-342-WKW

) (WO)

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

On April 24, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report (Doc. # 5) recommending that the

plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction be denied, to which the plaintiff did not object. This

court adopted the recommendation by order dated May 16, 2007. (Doc. # 7.) 

On May 17, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report (Doc. # 9) recommending that the

plaintiff’s claims against defendant Alabama Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) be dismissed

prior to service of process because it is not subject to suit or liability under § 1983. Objections to

this report were due on May 21, 2007. On May 22, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion for extension

of time to file objections. The Magistrate Judge granted the motion and extended the deadline to file

objections until June 5, 2007. On the same date, the plaintiff also filed a Reply and Rebuttal

(Doc. # 12), which the court deems an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the

ADOC be dismissed as well as the earlier denial of his motion for preliminary injunction. The

plaintiff did not file additional objections. 

After an independent and de novo review of the record, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT and

DECREE of the court that:

1. To the extent the plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the

Case 2:07-cv-00342-WKW-TFM Document 17 Filed 06/08/07 Page 1 of 2
2

motion for preliminary injunction be denied and the court’s order adopting the recommendation, the

plaintiff’s objections (Doc. # 12) are OVERRULED as untimely;

2. To the extent the plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the

ADOC be dismissed, the plaintiff’s objections (Doc. # 12) are OVERRULED as meritless;

3. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 9) is ADOPTED;

4. The plaintiff’s claims against the ADOC are DISMISSED with prejudice prior to

service pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i);

5. The ADOC is DISMISSED as a party to this action; and

6. This case with respect to the plaintiff’s claims against the remaining defendants is

REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 

DONE this 8th day of June, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:07-cv-00342-WKW-TFM Document 17 Filed 06/08/07 Page 2 of 2