Petersen v. Overstreet

S.D. Alabama

Petersen v. Overstreet

DecidedJanuary 24, 2020

Docket1:19-cv-00607

StatusUnknown

This text of Petersen v. Overstreet (Petersen v. Overstreet) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Petersen v. Overstreet, (S.D. Ala. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID P. PETERSEN ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-607-CG-B ) ADAM W. OVERSTREET, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court1. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint be and is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of January, 2020.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 In his objection (Doc. 14) to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff concedes that his complaint is due to be dismissed because his conviction has not been invalidated but contends that the statute of limitations has not run and that his action is not time barred, thus making a dismissal without prejudice appropriate. Plaintiff’s argument fails to recognize that in 1996, the Alabama legislature amended Alabama Code § 6-2-8 to remove imprisonment as a condition that tolled the statute of limitations. 1996 Ala. Laws 96-641. See also Holt v. Baker, 710 Fed.Appx. 422 (11th Cir. 2017). Dismissal with prejudice is therefore appropriate.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID P. PETERSEN ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-607-CG-B ) ADAM W. OVERSTREET, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court1. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint be and is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of January, 2020.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 In his objection (Doc. 14) to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff concedes that his complaint is due to be dismissed because his conviction has not been invalidated but contends that the statute of limitations has not run and that his action is not time barred, thus making a dismissal without prejudice appropriate. Plaintiff’s argument fails to recognize that in 1996, the Alabama legislature amended Alabama Code § 6-2-8 to remove imprisonment as a condition that tolled the statute of limitations. 1996 Ala. Laws 96-641. See also Holt v. Baker, 710 Fed.Appx. 422 (11th Cir. 2017). Dismissal with prejudice is therefore appropriate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Petersen v. Overstreet, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petersen-v-overstreet-alsd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack