Palmer v. Sediet (INMATE1)

Filing 3

RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: (1) the plaintiff's 1 MOTION for Class Certification be denied; (2) this case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for appropriate proceedings. Objections to R&R due by 5/2/2006. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 4/18/06. (sl, )

Download PDF
Palmer v. Sediet (INMATE1) Doc. 3 Case 2:06-cv-00344-WKW-CSC Document 3 Filed 04/18/2006 Page 1 of 3 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION N E L S O N LEE PALMER, #173247, Plaintiff, v. ) ) ) ) ) C IV IL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-344-WKW ) [W O ] ) ) ) ) DR. SEDIET, et al., Defendants. R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE T h i s is a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action in which Nelson Lee Palmer ["Palmer], a state in m a te , challenges the medical treatment provided to him at the Bullock County Correctional F a c ility. In his complaint, Palmer seeks to proceed in this case on behalf of all other s im ila rly situated inmates. The court therefore construes the complaint to contain a motion f o r class certification under Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon consideration o f the motion for class certification, the court concludes that this motion is due to be denied. P a lm e r is an inmate who seeks to represent the interests of all inmates confined in the A lab a m a prison system who have received medical treatment. Among the requirements w h ic h litigants must meet in order to maintain an action as a class action is that the " re p re se n tativ e parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." Rule 2 3 (a )( 4 ), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court concludes that Palmer will not be able Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:06-cv-00344-WKW-CSC Document 3 Filed 04/18/2006 Page 2 of 3 to fairly represent the class. See Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405 (4th Cir. 1975); H u m m e r v. Dalton, 657 F.2d 621 (4th Cir. 1981); Ethnic Awareness Organization v. Gagnon, 5 6 8 F.Supp. 1186 (E.D. Wis. 1983); Inmates, Washington County Jail v. England, 516 F .S u p p . 132 (E.D. Tenn. 1980), affirmed, 659 F.2d 1081 (6th Cir. 1981). Class certification in this case is therefore improper. Thus, the plaintiff's motion for class certification is due to be denied. C O N C L U SIO N A c c o rd in g ly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: 1 . The plaintiff's motion for class certification be DENIED. 2. This case be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings. It is further ORDERED that on or before May 2, 2006 the parties may file objections to the R e c o m m e n d a tio n . Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the M a g is tra te Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive o r general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised th a t this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the M a g is tra te Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the D is tric t Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from 2 Case 2:06-cv-00344-WKW-CSC Document 3 Filed 04/18/2006 Page 3 of 3 a tta c k in g on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the D is tric t Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. W a in w r ig h t, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 3 3 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en b a n c ), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed d o w n prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. D o n e this 18 th day of April, 2006. /s/Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY C H IE F UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3

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?