Davis v. Corizon Health Inc et al

Filing 10

ORDER - Having reviewed and considered the materials in the record, the Court adopts the magistrate judge's report and accepts his recommendation. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), the Court dismisses without prejudice Ms. Davis's c laims against the ADOC, Bibb Correctional Facility, and Corizon. The Court refers Mr. Daviss Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against defendant Melton and his (Mr. Davis's) Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against defendants Hutton, Wilson, Sealy, and Walker to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 10/10/2019. (KEK)

FILED
2019 Oct-11 AM 10:08
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALBERT LEE DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORIZON HEALTH INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:18-cv-2100-MHH-GMB

ORDER
Plaintiff Albert Lee Davis asserts claims against the defendants for excessive
force and deliberate indifference. (Doc. 1). On August 26, 2019, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), the magistrate judge entered a report in which he
recommended that the Court dismiss Ms. Davis’s claims against the Alabama
Department of Corrections, Bibb Correctional Facility, and Corizon Health, Inc.
without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc.
9). The magistrate judge recommended that the undersigned return Mr. Davis’s
Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against defendant Melton and Mr. Davis’s
Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against defendants Hutton,
Wilson, Sealy, and Walker to him (the magistrate judge) for further proceedings.
(Doc. 9). The magistrate judge advised Mr. Davis of his right to file specific written
objections to the report within 14 days; the Court has not received 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
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).
Having reviewed and considered the materials in the record, the Court adopts
the magistrate judge’s report and accepts his recommendation. Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), the Court dismisses without prejudice Ms. Davis’s claims
against the ADOC, Bibb Correctional Facility, and Corizon. The Court refers Mr.
Davis’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against defendant Melton and his
(Mr. Davis’s) Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against defendants
Hutton, Wilson, Sealy, and Walker to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of October, 2019.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2