Oden v. Johnson et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 11/30/2018. (JLC)
2018 Nov-30 PM 02:35
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
DAMON EUGENE ODEN,
KELLEY JOHNSON, et al.,
Case No.: 1:17-cv-0837-MHH-HNJ
Pro se plaintiff Damon Eugene Oden brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. He alleges that defendants Talladega County District Court Judge Jeb
Fannin; City of Sylacauga Police Chief Kelley Johnson; City of Sylacauga Police
Captain Rondell Muse; Talladega County Drug Task Force Officer Stephen
Ledbetter; and City of Sylacauga Police Lieutenant Willis Whatley violated his
rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States. (Doc. 15). Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), the magistrate judge assigned to this case granted Mr. Oden’s
request to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. (Docs. 2, 3).
Consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and this Court’s
customary practices, the magistrate judge reviewed Mr. Oden’s second amended
complaint, the operative complaint in this action. (Doc. 18, p. 1). On October 5,
2018, the magistrate judge recommended that the Court dismiss without prejudice
Mr. Oden’s federal claims for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 18, p. 15). The
magistrate judge also recommended that the Court dismiss without prejudice Mr.
Oden’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). (Doc. 18, p. 16). The
magistrate judge advised Mr. Oden of his right to file written objections within 14
days. (Doc. 18, pp. 16-17). To date, Mr. Oden has not objected 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).
Based on its review of the record in this case, the Court agrees with the
magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss Mr. Oden’s federal claims for
failure to state a claim, and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Oden’s state law claims against the
defendants.1 The Court directs Mr. Oden’s attention to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) (“The
The Court accepts and adopts the magistrate judge’s analysis with respect to Mr. Oden’s
inadequate pleading of his federal claims. The Court does not adopt the discussion regarding
collateral estoppel. The Court dismisses Mr. Oden’s false arrest claim because, as the magistrate
judge explained, Mr. Oden “simply alleged the ultimate conclusion that he was falsely arrested,
without submitting specific factual assertions to support that conclusion. He provides no specific
period of limitations for any claim asserted under subsection (a), and for any other
claim in the same action that is voluntarily dismissed at the same time as or after
the dismissal of the claim under subsection (a), shall be tolled while the claim is
pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides
for a longer tolling period.”).
The Court will issue a separate dismissal order consistent with this
DONE and ORDERED this November 30, 2018.
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
factual support to show that, under the totality of the circumstances that existed at the time, the
defendants lacked probable cause to make the arrest.” (Doc. 18, p. 6).
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?