Source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/alabama/almdce/1:2012cv00116/47398/8
Timestamp: 2018-07-19 11:54:28
Document Index: 785253639

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 2254', '§ 636', '§ 2254', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 2254']

ORDER that Plaintiff's 6 and 7 objections are OVERRULED; that 5 Report and Recommendations is ADOPTED; that Plaintiff's 4 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; that Plaintiff's § 1983 procedural due process claim is DI SMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U for Smedley v. City of Ozark (MAG+) :: Justia Dockets & Filings
Justia Dockets & Filings Eleventh Circuit Alabama Alabama Middle District Court Smedley v. City of Ozark (MAG+) Filing 8
ORDER that Plaintiff's 6 and 7 objections are OVERRULED; that 5 Report and Recommendations is ADOPTED; that Plaintiff's 4 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; that Plaintiff's § 1983 procedural due process claim is DI SMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), for failure to state an actionable procedural due process claim; that Plaintiff's claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies; that a separate final judgment will be entered. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 5/15/2012. (cc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION DARRELL SMEDLEY, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF OZARK, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:12-CV-116-WKW ORDER On March 9, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 5) regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 4). Plaintiff filed timely objections. (Docs. # 6 & 7.) The court reviews de novo the portion of the Recommendation to which the objections apply. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). For the reasons that follow, the objections are due to be overruled and the Recommendation adopted. It appears that Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s findings that Plaintiff failed to allege a procedural due process claim, (Doc. # 6, at 5), and that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his state remedies so as to assert a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. # 6, at 7.) In his objections, Plaintiff still fails to establish that the state of Alabama has not provided an adequate post-deprivation remedy, and thus, he does not properly allege a procedural due process claim. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s objections do not show that Plaintiff has exhausted his state remedies. Plaintiff does provide evidence that he has filed state court actions against Defendant; however, this evidence does not provide the nature or the disposition of those cases. (See, e.g., Attach. 1 to Doc. # 6; Attach. 1 to Doc. # 7.) Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s objections (Docs. # 6 & 7) are OVERRULED; 2. the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 5) is ADOPTED; 3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 4) is DENIED; 4. Plaintiff’s § 1983 procedural due process claim is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), for failure to state an actionable procedural due process claim; and 5. Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. A separate final judgment will be entered. DONE this 15th day of May, 2012. /s/ W. Keith Watkins CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2