Smith v. Murphy et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 1/24/2017. (KEK)

FILED
2017 Jan-24 PM 01:50
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MATTHEW DEWAYNE SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
SERGEANT MURPHY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-01251-MHH-TMP

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The magistrate judge filed a report on November 1, 2016, recommending
that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)
for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 1 (Doc. 9). In
response, the plaintiff, Mr. Smith, has filed a pleading titled “Motion for Notice to
Amend Complaint or in the Alternative Motion for Objection.” (Doc. 12). For the
reasons stated below, the Court denies the motion to amend and overrules the
objections.
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

1

The magistrate judge stated that his recommendation would be subject to amendment if the
plaintiff “amend[ed] the complaint to provide additional factual allegations to establish a
plausible claim.” (Doc. 9, pp. 9-10).

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).
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).
In his report, the magistrate judge explained that in his initial complaint, Mr.
Smith failed to state a claim for a violation of the Eighth Amendment because Mr.
Smith did not allege that the defendant nurses’ failure to give him immediate,
emergency medical treatment for bleeding hemorrhoids exposed him to a
substantial risk of serious harm or detrimentally exacerbated his medical problem.
(Doc. 9, pp. 6-7). Mr. Smith’s proposed amended complaint contains factual
allegations which differ only slightly from his original complaint and from the
factual allegations described in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
Mr. Smith offers no additional substantive facts to support an Eighth Amendment
claim, other than his allegation that “[i]t took several weeks for the plaintiff to be
seen by a doctor, even though [he] continued to complain about pain.” (Doc. 12 at
2). As in his initial complaint, Mr. Smith has not provided a factual allegation
which demonstrates that the delay detrimentally exacerbated his medical problem.

Furthermore, Mr. Smith received medication for his hemorrhoid issues, and he
alleges no facts that suggest that additional medical care was necessary while he
waited to see a doctor. Thus, Mr. Smith’s supplemental factual allegations do not
undermine the magistrate judge’s conclusion that the facts alleged do not support
an Eighth Amendment claim that is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Consequently, Mr. Smith’s proposed amendment is futile.
Accordingly, having reviewed and considered Mr. Smith’s original
complaint, his supplemental factual allegations, and the magistrate judge’s report
and recommendation, the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s report and accepts
his recommendation. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), this Court will
dismiss this action without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.
The Court will enter a separate final judgment.

DONE and ORDERED this January 24, 2017.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE