Millender v. Fannin et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 1/22/2018. (KEK)

FILED
2018 Jan-22 AM 09:12
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL T. MILLENDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE JEB FANNIN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:17-cv-00623-MHH-TMP

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On December 1, 2017, the magistrate judge entered a report in which he
recommended, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), that the Court dismiss this
action without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. (Doc. 8). The magistrate judge advised plaintiff Michael T. Millender of
his right to file objections within 14 days. (Doc. 8, p. 12). To date, Mr. Millender
has not filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.1
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

1

On December 1, 2017, the Clerk mailed a copy of the report and recommendation to Mr.
Millender at his address of record at the Talladega County Jail. (December 1, 2017 staff note).
On December 7, 2017, the Postal Service returned the mail as undeliverable with a notation that
Mr. Millender no longer was incarcerated at the Talladega County Jail. (Doc. 9). On December
13, 2017, the Clerk mailed a copy of the report and recommendation to Mr. Millender at his
updated address at the Bibb Correctional Facility. (See Doc. 10; December 13, 2017 staff note).
The Postal Service has not returned this copy of the report and recommendation.

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).2
Having reviewed the complaint and the report and recommendation, the
Court finds no misstatements of law in the report and no plain error in the
magistrate judge’s description of the relevant facts. Therefore, the Court adopts
the magistrate judge’s report and accepts his recommendation 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 can be granted.
The Court will enter a final judgment consistent with this memorandum
opinion.
DONE and ORDERED this January 22, 2018.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

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