Weber v. Latham et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 12/8/2015. (AVC)
2015 Dec-08 PM 03:37
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
GREGORY SCOTT WEBER,
RAY LATHAM, et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00180-RDP-SGC
The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on November 9, 2015,
recommending this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
The Magistrate Judge further recommended the court decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. (Id.). Although the Magistrate Judge
advised Plaintiff of his right to file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days, the
court has received no objections from Plaintiff.1
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file,
including the Report and Recommendation, the court is of the opinion that the Magistrate
Judge’s Report is due to be and is hereby ADOPTED and the recommendation is ACCEPTED.
Accordingly, this action is due to be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
The Report and Recommendation originally mailed to Plaintiff at Clay County Detention Center was
returned as undeliverable. (Doc. 12). On November 13, 2015, the court received a letter from Plaintiff informing
the court he had been moved to a work release facility in Decatur, Alabama. (Doc. 11). Plaintiff also inquired about
the status of his case and requested a copy of all orders, as well as a case action summary. (Id.). A copy of the
docket sheet and the Report and Recommendation was mailed to Plaintiff at the Decatur work release facility that
1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.2
A final judgment will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED this December 8, 2015.
R. DAVID PROCTOR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Because the court concludes that dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims is appropriate, only Plaintiff’s
state law claims remain. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims where it
has dismissed all the underlying federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In making this determination, the court
should consider factors such as “comity, judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and the like.” See Crosby v.
Paulk, 187 F.3d 1339, 1352 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting Roche v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 81 F.3d 249, 257
(1st Cir.1996)). Although this decision is discretionary, see Engelhardt v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 139 F.3d 1346,
1350 (11th Cir. 1998), the dismissal of state law claims is strongly encouraged where the federal claims are
dismissed prior to trial. See Baggett v. First Nat’l Bank, 117 F.3d 1342, 1353 (11th Cir. 1997). Where the court
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims, the claims should be dismissed without prejudice so
they can be refiled in the appropriate state court. See Crosby, 187 F.3d at 1352. In the interest of judicial economy
and convenience, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims
in this action.
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?