Tigner v. Steve et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 11/24/2015. (KEK)
2015 Nov-24 AM 10:54
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
ARTHUR JAMES TIGNER,
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, et al.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-1706-MHH-TMP
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
Magistrate Judge T. Michael Putnam filed a report on July 23, 2015,
recommending that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice for failing to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(b)(1).
(Doc. 16). In his July 23, 2015 report, Judge Putnam advised Ms. Tigner of his
right to file specific written objections within fourteen days. (Doc. 16, p. 7). Mr.
Tigner has not filed written objections.
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The Court reviews for plain error the portions of the report or proposed findings to
which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir.
1993); see also United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per
curiam), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984) (“The failure to object to the
magistrate’s findings of fact prohibits an attack on appeal of the factual findings
adopted by the district court except on grounds of plain error or manifest injustice.”)
(internal citation omitted); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir.
Applying the plain error standard, the Court ADOPTS the July 23, 2015
report and ACCEPTS Judge Putnam’s recommendation that Mr. Tigner’s claims be
dismissed without prejudice because Mr. Tigner has failed to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The Court will enter a
separate order consistent with this memorandum opinion.
DONE and ORDERED this November 24, 2015.
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
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?