Slay v. Tuscaloosa County Jail et al

Filing 13

ORDER - Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mr. Slays claims against the Tuscaloosa County Jail and his Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against defendants Bailey, Montgomery, Norris, and Anderson fo r failing to respond to his grievances. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C), the Court returns this case to the magistrate judge for further proceedings on Mr. Slays Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against defendant Waid; Mr. Slays Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against defendant Bobo; and Mr. Slays Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims against defendant Bailey. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 10/18/2017. (KEK)

FILED
2017 Oct-18 PM 03:55
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION

SYLVESTER SLAY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
TUSCALOOSA COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:16-cv-00555-MHH-HNJ

ORDER
On July 10, 2017, the magistrate judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1), entered a report in which he recommended that the Court dismiss
without prejudice plaintiff Sylvester Slay’s claims against the Tuscaloosa County
Jail and his Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against defendants Bailey,
Montgomery, Norris, and Anderson for failing to respond to his grievances. (Doc.
12, pp. 5-6, 9). The magistrate judge also recommended that the Court return to
him for additional proceedings Mr. Slay’s Eighth Amendment excessive force
claim against defendant Waid; Mr. Slay’s Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claim against defendant Bobo; and Mr. Slay’s Eighth Amendment
conditions of confinement claims against defendant Bailey. (Doc. 12, pp. 6-8).
The magistrate judge advised Mr. Slay of his right to file specific written

objections to the recommendation. (Doc. 12, p. 10-11). To date, Mr. Slay 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
The Court finds no misstatements of law in the report and no plain error in the
magistrate judge’s description of the relevant factual allegations in Mr. Slay’s
complaint. Therefore, the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s report and accepts
his recommendation.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT
PREJUDICE Mr. Slay’s claims against the Tuscaloosa County Jail and his
Fourteenth

Amendment

due

process

claims

against

defendants

Bailey,

Montgomery, Norris, and Anderson for failing to respond to his grievances.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C), the Court returns this case to the
magistrate judge for further proceedings on Mr. Slay’s Eighth Amendment
1

When a party objects to a report in which a magistrate judge recommends dismissal of a claim,
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

excessive force claim against defendant Waid; Mr. Slay’s Eighth Amendment
deliberate indifference claim against defendant Bobo; and Mr. Slay’s Eighth
Amendment conditions of confinement claims against defendant Bailey.
DONE and ORDERED this October 18, 2017.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3