Anders v. Jewell et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 11/10/15. (SAC )

FILED
2015 Nov-10 PM 01:41
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
REGINALD ANTON ANDERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER CHRIS JEWELL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-00047-WMA-SGC

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On October 20, 2015, the magistrate judge entered a report
recommending this action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, be
dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failing to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 9). The plaintiff’s
claims rest on allegations that various members of the West Alabama
Narcotics Task Force deprived him of cash and personal property
without due process. The magistrate judge found the plaintiff
failed to state any viable claims and recommended dismissal because
there is an adequate post-deprivation remedy available to address
the plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. 9 at 4-6). The plaintiff filed
objections to the report and recommendation on October 27, 2015.
(Doc. 10).
In his objections, the plaintiff sets forth the standard
applicable to a motion to dismiss and cites case law concerning
absolute and qualified immunity. (Doc. 10 at 2-3). However, the
objections do not address the magistrate judge’s conclusion that
the availability of an adequate post-deprivation remedy requires

dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S.
517, 532-33 (1984) (“[A]n unauthorized intentional deprivation of
property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the
procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is
available”).
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the
materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation and the objections thereto, the court is of the opinion that
the magistrate judge’s report is due to be and is hereby ADOPTED
and the recommendation is ACCEPTED. Accordingly, the complaint is
due to be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failing
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
A separate order effectuating this opinion will be entered.
DONE this 10th day of November, 2015.

_____________________________
WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2