Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00470/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00470-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ike Harris
Defendant
Clarence J. Rutland
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CLARENCE J. RUTLAND,

Plaintiff,

v.

IKE HARRIS,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 2:13-CV-470-WKW

ORDER

On May 27, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this 

case. (Doc. # 39.) On June 9, 2014, Plaintiff Clarence Rutland filed a document 

“[p]ursuant to Rule 60(b),” which the court construes as containing objections to 

the Recommendation. (Doc. # 40.) The court has conducted an independent and

de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to which objections have 

been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

It is acknowledged that Mr. Rutland’s objections purport to introduce 

“newly discovered” allegations that he has suffered asbestos-related injuries while 

an inmate at Kilby Correctional Facility. (Doc. # 40, at 4.) Such a claim is not 

presently before the court. If Mr. Rutland wishes to raise a new claim against an 

appropriate defendant, he must do so by filing a new civil action.

Case 2:13-cv-00470-WKW-TFM Document 41 Filed 06/17/14 Page 1 of 2
2

Upon review of the Magistrate’s Recommendation and Mr. Rutland’s 

objections, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. Mr. Rutland’s objections (Doc. # 40) are OVERRULED;

2. The Recommendation (Doc. # 39) is ADOPTED;

3. Defendant Ike Harris’s motion to dismiss (Doc. # 35) is GRANTED;

4. Mr. Rutland’s claims against Defendant Ike Harris are DISMISSED 

with prejudice;

5. Any outstanding motions are DENIED as moot.

A separate final judgment will be entered.

DONE this 17th day of June, 2014. 

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-00470-WKW-TFM Document 41 Filed 06/17/14 Page 2 of 2