Taylor v. 29 Judicial Circuit Talladega Alabama et al
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 11/13/2018. (KEK)
FILED
2018 Nov-13 PM 01:47
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
KEITH JUSANDTO TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
29 JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
TALLADEGA COUNTY
ALABAMA, et al.,
Defendants.
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
Case No.: 1:17-cv-1552-MHH-TMP
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On September 12, 2017, pro se plaintiff Keith Jusandto Taylor filed this
action against a number of defendants, and he moved to proceed without
prepayment of the court’s filing fee. (Docs. 1, 2). The magistrate judge who is
presiding over this case with the undersigned judicial officer granted Mr. Taylor’s
in forma pauperis request. (Doc. 3, p. 1). Mr. Taylor then filed an amended
complaint, and that complaint currently is before the Court. In his amended
complaint, Mr. Taylor asserts claims against the 29th Judicial Circuit, the
Talladega County Sheriff’s Department, Sheriff Jimmy Kilgore, and District
Attorney Steve Giddens. (Doc. 9).
Consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and this Court’s
customary practices, the magistrate judge screened Mr. Taylor’s amended
complaint.
(Doc. 12, p. 1).
Based on his review of Mr. Taylor’s amended
complaint and the law applicable to Mr. Taylor’s claims, the magistrate judge
recommended that the Court dismiss Mr. Taylor’s action for failure to state a
claim. (Doc. 12, p. 8). The magistrate judge advised Mr. Taylor of his right to file
specific written objections within fourteen (14) days. (Doc. 12, pp. 8-9). To date,
Mr. Taylor 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).
The Court has reviewed Mr. Taylor’s amended complaint and agrees with
the magistrate judge’s recommendation because under the law, Mr. Taylor may not
pursue claims against the 29th Judicial Circuit or the Talladega County Sheriff’s
Department, and Mr. Taylor has failed to state a claim against the remaining
defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 12). 1 In addition, Mr. Taylor may not
pursue habeas relief in this action. (Doc. 12).
1
Were this case to move forward, Mr. Giddens also might have an immunity defense to Mr.
Taylor’s claims.
2
Therefore, the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s report and accepts his
recommendation. The Court will issue a separate dismissal order consistent with
this memorandum opinion.
DONE this 13th day of November, 2018.
_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?