Bowhall v. NBC Inc. et al

Filing 12

ORDER overruling the 9 10 11 Objections; denying the 11 Motion for Extension of Time; adopting the 8 Recommendation; granting the 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; dismissing the federal claims against Defendants without pr ejudice prior to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii); declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); dismissing the state law claims without prejudice. Signed by Honorable William Keith Watkins on 11/18/2010. (br, )

Download PDF
Bowhall v. NBC Inc. et al(MAG+) Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION W IL L IA M E. BOWHALL, P la in tif f , v. N B C , INC., et al., D e f e n d a n ts. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2:10-CV-608-WKW [WO] O R D E R ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION O n September 22, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation in th is case. (Doc. # 8.) On October 6, 2010, Plaintiff William E. Bowhall1 filed a Motion to P ro c e e d - In Pro-Se (Doc. # 9), and subsequently a Motion of Continuation (presumably of M r. Bowhall's thoughts) (Doc. # 10), which after review, the court construes as objections. On November 15, 2010, Mr. Bowhall field a Motion for Extension of Time And (Motion to Continue) Supplementals (Added) (Doc. # 11), which the court also construes in part as a n objection. The court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n to which objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). T h e Magistrate Judge liberally construed Mr. Bowhall's complaint as seeking relief Mr. Bowhall has filed eight other civil actions in this court. See Bowhall v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 2:10cv601-WKW (July 14, 2010); Bowhall v. Capitol-EMI Records, Inc., No. 2:10cv603WKW (July 14, 2010); Bowhall v. Office of James M. Deiman, et al., No. 2:10cv604-WKW (July 14, 2010); Bowhall v. Howell High Sch. Bd. of Educ., No. 2:10cv605-WKW (July 14, 2010); Bowhall v. Viacom, Inc., et al., No. 2:10cv606-WKW (July 14, 2010); Bowhall v. Dep't of Defense, et al., No. 2:10cv607-WKW (July 14, 2010); Bowhall v. Obama, No. 2:10cv609-WKW (July 14, 2010); Bowhall v. NAACP Beverly Hills, No. 2:10cv679-WKW (Aug. 10, 2010). 1 under both 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unkown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (Doc. # 8, at 5.) To obtain relief under 1983 or Bivens, Mr. Bowhall must show that he was d e p riv e d of a federal right by a person acting under color of state (for 1983 claims) or f e d e ra l (for Bivens claims) law. See Patrick v. Floyd Medical Center, 201 F.3d 1313, 1315 (1 1 th Cir. 2000) ( 1983 claims); O'Brien v. United States, 137 Fed. Appx. 295, 299 (11th C ir. 2005) (Bivens claims). The Magistrate Judge concluded that Mr. Bowhall's claims did n o t allege that the Defendants were acting under color of state or federal law. Mr. Bowhall o b je c ts to this conclusion, and seems to posit that everyone is a state actor. "That by a rg u m e n t, private parties . . . lawyers, prominent members of society, preachers, etc., are g iv e n `state actor' status . . . ." (Doc. # 9, at 6.) The court is aware of no authority s u p p o rtin g Mr. Bowhall's interpretation of state action. F u rth e rm o re , because all of Mr. Bowhall's federal claims are due to be dismissed, the c o u rt declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Bowhall's state claims. See 28 U .S .C . 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. 2. 3. P la in tif f 's Objections (Docs. # 9, 10, 11) are OVERRULED; P la in tif f 's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. # 11) is DENIED; T h e Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 8) is A DO PTED ; 4. P la in tif f 's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 2) is GRANTED; 2 5. P la in tif f 's federal claims against Defendants are DISMISSED without p re ju d ic e prior to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)(ii); and 6. S u p p le m e n ta l jurisdiction over the state claims is declined pursuant to 28 U .S .C . 1367(c)(3), and the state law claims are dismissed without prejudice. A n appropriate judgment will be entered. DONE this 18th day of November, 2010. /s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?