Evans v. Falls

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING and ACCEPTING the 12 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 5/22/2017. (JLC)

FILED
2017 May-22 AM 11:55
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ALBERT JAMES EVANS,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRANDON K. FALLS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-01698-VEH-JHE

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Albert James Evans has filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 alleging that rights, privileges, or immunities afforded him under the
Constitution or laws of the United States have been abridged. (Doc. 1). On April 25,
2017, the magistrate recommended that “the plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted.” (Doc. 12 at 4). In that same document,
the magistrate advised the Plaintiff of his right to object to the recommendation
within fourteen (14) calendar days. (Doc. 12 at 4). The time for filing objections has
now passed and no objections have been filed.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo the entire court file,
including the report and recommendation of the magistrate, the Court is of the
opinion that the magistrate’s recommendation is due to be, and hereby is,

ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.
The Court also notes that
“[a] prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity for all actions he takes
while performing his function as an advocate for the government,”
including “the initiation and pursuit of criminal prosecution,” and “all
appearances before the court, including examining witnesses and
presenting evidence.”
Rowe v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 279 F.3d 1271, 1279 (11th Cir. 2002) (dismissing
two section 1983 malicious prosecution claims against prosecutor) (citing Buckley
v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273, 113 S.Ct. 2606, 2615–16, 125 L.Ed.2d 209
(1993); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 424, 96 S.Ct. 984, 992, 47 L.Ed.2d 128
(1976); Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 492 111 S.Ct. 1934, 1942 (1991)); see also,
Rehberg v. Paulk, 611 F.3d 828, 837–38 (11th Cir. 2010), aff'd, 566 U.S. 356, 132
S. Ct. 1497, 182 L. Ed. 2d 593 (2012) (finding that prosecutor was entitled to
absolute immunity from malicious prosecution claim). For all of these reasons, the
Court specifically finds that the complaint in this case is due to be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. A final order will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED this 22th day of May, 2017.

VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS
United States District Judge
2