Jackson v. Department of the Army et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION, as set out, re the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 4 , and plaintiff Stanley Benton Jackson's Objections to Magistrate's Report and Decision, 5 & 7 . Signed by Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn on 11/5/14. (CTS, )
2014 Nov-05 PM 04:38
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
STANLEY BENTON JACKSON,
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; JAY
F. JOHNSON, Director of Emergency
Services of the Anniston Army Depot;
MARK EPPS, Supervisor of Building
102 at the Anniston Army Depot,
CASE NO. 1:14-CV-1315-SLB
This case is presently before the court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, (doc. 4), and plaintiff Stanley Benton Jackson’s Objections to Magistrate’s
Report and Decision, (docs. 5, 7).
The Report and Recommendation recommended that plaintiff’s request to proceed in
forma pauperis be denied and that his Complaint be dismissed because his claims against the
defendants were frivolous. (Doc. 4 at 4-6.) In response, plaintiff asserts that his claims are
not frivolous based on his allegations of race discrimination and evidence that defendant Jay
F. Johnson “grossly violated” Army regulations. (Doc. 5 at 1-2; doc. 7.) However, he does
not address the Magistrate Judge’s report that the finding of frivolousness was based on the
facts that plaintiff had sued federal government parties under § 1983, which only provides
a remedy for unlawful actions taken under color of state law, nor does he address the
Magistrate Judge’s report that his Complaint is frivolous because it seeks relief that only his
former employer, who is not named in his Complaint, can provide.
The district court reviews de novo those parts of the Report and Recommendation to
which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3)(“The district
judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been
properly objected to.”).
The court may review the other parts of the Report and
Recommendation for plain error or manifest injustice. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093,
1095 (11th Cir. 1983)(citing Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 (11th Cir. 1982)).
“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive
further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(3). The court has reviewed the entire record before the Magistrate Judge as well as
the Report and Recommendation and plaintiff’s Objections.
Based on its careful considered, the court ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate
Judge and ACCEPTS his Recommendations. Contemporaneous with the entry of this
Memorandum Opinion, the court will enter an Order denying plaintiff’s Motion for Leave
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and dismissing his Complaint as frivolous.
DONE this 5th day of November, 2014.
SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?