Stokes v. Adkins

Filing 16

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 13 Report and Recommendations.; denying 14 Motion to Stay; granting 15 Motion. Having carefully reviewed and considered Mr. Stokess complaint, amended complaints, and the report and recommendation , the Court finds no misstatements of law in the report and no plain error in the magistrate judges description of the relevant facts. Therefore, the Court adopts the magistrate judges report and accepts his recommendation. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 10/14/2016. (KMG, )

FILED
2016 Oct-14 PM 05:00
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY WAYNE STOKES,
Plaintiff,
v.
CELLIE WAYNE MILLER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 2:14-cv-02268-MHH-JHE
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On February 12, 2016, the magistrate judge entered a report in which he
recommended that the Court dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc.
13). The magistrate judge informed plaintiff Timothy Wayne Stokes of his right to
file “specific written objections” to the report and recommendation “within
fourteen (14) calendar days from the date the report and recommendation is
entered.” (Doc. 13, p. 7). Mr. Stokes did not file objections to the report and
recommendation. Neither did the defendants.
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
Although he did not file objections, Mr. Stokes has filed two motions. On
February 23, 2016, Mr. Stokes filed a “Motion to Stay Proceedings to Enforce a
Judgment.” (Doc. 14).2 He requests that this action be stayed:
until the court enters judgment on the motion to compel discovery []
pending in this court and for good cause would show the following:
1.) time to perfect the plan[,]
2.) to contact the circuit court to gather legal proof, discovery
evidence, such as legal documentation[,]
3.) time to gather court transcript, incident report, witness list, case
action summary sheet, pre-sentence investigation, etc.[, and]
4.) the time frame needed to exhaust my state remedies is at least
fourteen (14) to (21) twenty-one days.

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

Because prisoners proceeding pro se have virtually no control over the mailing of their
pleadings, their pleadings are deemed filed when the prisoner delivers the pleading to prison or
jail officials for mailing. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270-72 (1988). Although the
record contains no information regarding the date on which Mr. Stokes gave his motion to jail
officials to mail, he signed the motion on February 23, 2016. Therefore, the Court deems the
motion filed on that date.
2

(Doc. 14, pp. 1-2). Mr. Stokes states, “[t]his will give the court the proper time to
respond back and give me the time needed to exhaust state remedies.” (Doc. 14, p.
2).
Mr. Stokes has not filed a motion for discovery in this case, and, even if he
had, the Court would deny the motion as premature. Mr. Stokes makes requests
for time to perfect a plan, gather evidence, and exhaust state remedies, presumably
in an effort to obtain relief from his state conviction and sentence.

As the

magistrate judge explained in his report and recommendation, Mr. Stokes already
has pursued a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging the state court
conviction to which he alludes in this civil rights action. (Doc. 13, p. 3) (citing
Timothy Wayne Stokes v. Karla Jones and the Attorney General for the State of
Alabama, Case No. 2:14-cv-00270-VEH-JHE, doc. 1 (N.D. Ala. filed Feb. 14,
2014)). The district court denied Mr. Stokes’s habeas petition. (Doc. 13, p. 5).
Therefore, the Court denies Mr. Stokes’s motion to stay. (Doc. 14).
On September 30, 2016, Mr. Stokes filed a motion for production of
documents. (Doc. 15). Mr. Stokes requests copies of all documents filed in this
action. Mr. Stokes explains that he:
filed his civil action case on or about 11-24-14 and due to a major
shake down at [] Easterling Correctional Facility[,] the documents
were lost and if I have to further my appeal[,] I would need any and
all documents that was [sic] filed into this court by the plaintiff that
did support[] his cl[ai]m.
3

(Doc. 15, p. 1).

The Court grants Mr. Stokes’s motion for production of

documents and asks the Clerk to please mail to Mr. Stokes copies of Documents 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.
Having carefully reviewed and considered Mr. Stokes’s complaint, amended
complaints, 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.

Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this case

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failing to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted.
The Court will enter a separate final judgment.
DONE and ORDERED this October 14, 2016.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4