THOMAS v. YOUNG

Civil Action Nos. 2:16-CV-357-WHA, 2:16-CV-888-WHA

QUARTEZ T. THOMAS, #291 355, Plaintiff, v. ROBIN YOUNG, C/O, et al., Defendants. QUARTEZ THOMAS, #291 355, Plaintiff, v. ROBIN YOUNG, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 555 Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition)
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Quartez T. Thomas, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Robin Young, Defendant, represented by Bettie J. Carmack , Alabama Attorney General's Office.

John Hudson, Defendant, represented by Bettie J. Carmack , Alabama Attorney General's Office.

M. Scott, Defendant, represented by Bettie J. Carmack , Alabama Attorney General's Office.


RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SUSAN RUSS WALKER, Magistrate Judge.

On April 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend which the court construes as a motion to dismiss Defendant John Hudson as a party to the complaint. Upon review of the motion, the court concludes that it should be granted.

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

1. Plaintiff's April 10, 2017, motion, construed as a motion to dismiss Defendant John Hudson (Doc. 35), be GRANTED;

2. Defendant John Hudson be DISMISSED with prejudice as a party to this complaint; and

3. This case, with respect to the remaining defendants, be referred back to the undersigned for additional proceedings.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before May 2, 2017, the parties may file an objection to the Recommendation. A party must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections to the Recommendation will not be considered.

Failure to file a written objection to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of the party 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. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases