Giles v. Crime Stoppers of Birmingham Ala. et al

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 3/14/17. (SAC )

FILED
2017 Mar-14 AM 09:40
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
JOE NATHAN GILES,
Plaintiff,
v.
CRIME STOPPERS OF BIRMINGHAM,
ALA.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 4:16-cv-00264-KOB-SGC
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
The magistrate judge filed a report on November 10, 2016, recommending this
action be dismissed without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). (Doc. 21). The plaintiff has
filed several objections to the report and recommendation. (Docs. 22, 27, 28, 30).
In his objections, the plaintiff reasserts his claims that defendant Crime
Stoppers of Birmingham, Alabama released his name to a fellow inmate thereby
violating company policy that anyone providing information related to a case would
remain anonymous. (Id.). The plaintiff states he was labeled a “rat” in prison and
prison officials placed him in segregation for his own protection. (Doc. 22 at 1; Doc.
30 at 1-2).
The plaintiff does not address in his objections the magistrate judge’s findings

that Crime Stoppers, the sole defendant in this action, is not a state actor and cannot
be a proper defendant for purposes of § 1983. See District of Columbia v. Carter,
409 U.S. 418, 423 (1973); Blanton v. Griel Mem’l Psychiatric Hosp., 758 F.2d 1540,
1542 (11th Cir. 1985). Even taking as true the plaintiff’s claims that Crime Stoppers
released his name in violation of its policy, the plaintiff cannot state a cause of action
under § 1983 against a private actor without a showing that the private actor
conspired with a state actor to deprive him of his constitutional rights. Lugar v.
Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 931-32 (1982); Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 2729 (1980). Because the plaintiff has not made such a showing, his complaint against
Crime Stoppers fails to state a claim for relief.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court
file, including the report and recommendation, and the objections thereto, the
magistrate judge’s report is ADOPTED and the recommendation is ACCEPTED.
Therefore, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), this action is due to be
dismissed without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
The court will enter a separate Final Order.
DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of March, 2017.

____________________________________
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2