Davis v. Birmingham City Jail
|Christopher Shawn Davis
|Birmingham City Jail, Harper, Shelby, Dial, Dixon and Birmingham Police Department
|staff attorney 1
|February 1, 2017
|US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
|L Scott Coogler
|T Michael Putnam
|Nature of Suit:
|Cause of Action:
|42 U.S.C. § 1983
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|October 25, 2017
ORDER Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation, the magistrate judge's report is hereby ADOPTED and the recommendation is ACCEPTED in all aspects with the excep tion of the manner in which some of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed. The recommended dismissal of certain claims with prejudice is REJECTED because the claims are due to be dismissed without prejudice. Therefore, the court ORDERS that the p laintiff's request for injunctive and declaratory relief is MOOT. The court FURTHER ORDERS that with the exception of the claims described in numbers 1 through 4 above, all claims against all defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant t o 28 U.S.C.1 The court recognizes this list does not mirror the recommendation section of the magistrate judges report. (Doc. 7 at 26-28 ("Section V")). Nonetheless, the list accurately describes the recommendations made in analysis section. (Id. at 8-26 (Section IV)).§ 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Claims 1 through 4 are REFERRED to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 10/25/2017. (PSM)
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Alabama Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?