Ferguson v. State of Alabama et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 12/30/2016. (AVC)

Download PDF
FILED 2016 Dec-30 AM 10:20 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION DRAGO KUELH FERGUSON, JR., Inmate # 190406 Plaintiff, v. STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:15-cv-01695-MHH-TMP MEMORANDUM OPINION On June 15, 2016, the magistrate judge filed a report in which he recommended that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 9). The magistrate judge advised plaintiff Drago Kuelh Ferguson of his right to file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days. (Doc. 9, pp. 10-11). To date, Mr. Ferguson has not filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 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). A district court reviews legal conclusions in a report de novo and reviews for plain error factual findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749 (11th Cir. 1988); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).1 Having reviewed the amended complaint (Doc. 8) and the report and recommendation (Doc. 9), the Court finds no misstatements of law in the report and no plain error in the magistrate judge’s factual findings. Therefore, the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s report and accepts his recommendation. Accordingly, by separate order, the Court will dismiss Mr. Ferguson’s amended complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. DONE this 30th day of December, 2016. MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 1 When a party objects to a report in which a magistrate judge recommends dismissal of the action, a district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). 2

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?