Denton v. Colbert County Sheriff's Dept

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION ADOPTING and ACCEPTING the Magistrate Judge's 38 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 3/24/2015. (JLC)

FILED
2015 Mar-24 PM 02:43
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHWESTERN DIVISION
RICKY WALTER DENTON,
Plaintiff ,
v.
COLBERT COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 3:12-cv-04059-VEH-JEO
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation on February 2, 2015,
recommending that this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be dismissed under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
(Doc. 38). The plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation on
February 23, 2015. (Doc. 41).
In his objections, the plaintiff merely restates that his claims against defendants
May and Vanderford for allegedly intercepting his outgoing mail and showing the
same to others are not barred by the doctrine of res judicata.1 (Doc. 41 at 1-2). The

1

The plaintiff maintains that the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) is
responsible for Colbert County Jail’s policies and procedures. (Doc. 41 at 2). However, he does not
object to the magistrate judge’s finding that the Eleventh Amendment bars his § 1983 claims against
the ADOC. He also does not object to the magistrate judge’s finding that he has failed to adequately
allege facts as to defendant “John Doe.” The court has nonetheless reviewed thoe findings and finds
that they are correct applications of the law to this case.

plaintiff argues that he did not know the “details” of who was intercepting his
outgoing mail until his robbery trial in 2011. (Doc. 41 at 2).
Upon review of the plaintiff’s previous state court litigation, it is apparent that
the plaintiff was well aware of the conduct about which he complains before his
federal robbery trial in 2011. The plaintiff previously filed suit on November 17,
2010, in the Colbert County Circuit Court against the very same defendants — May
and Vanderford ---- for allegedly intercepting his outgoing mail and showing the
same to others, which are the same operative facts and legal theories asserted in the
present case. Additionally, the state court dismissed the plaintiff’s lawsuit against
defendants May and Vanderford with prejudice. Therefore, res judicata applies and
the plaintiff’s claims against May and Vanderford are due to be dismissed.
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 Final Judgment will be entered.

2

DONE this 24th day of March, 2015.

VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS
United States District Judge

3