Pickett v. Dollar General Stores et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION, as set out. The court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge's R&R is due to be ADOPTED and the recommendation ACCEPTED. A Final Judgment will be entered. Signed by Chief Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn on 2/4/13. (CTS, )

FILED
2013 Feb-04 AM 10:35
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
CAROL BURNETT PICKETT,
Plaintiff
vs.
DOLLAR GENERAL STORES,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:12-cv-00919-SLB-HGD

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
The magistrate judge filed a report on December 26, 2012, recommending
that the federal claims in 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. 17). The magistrate judge further recommended that any state
law claims asserted in the complaint be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
The plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation on January
10, 2013. (Doc. 18). In her objections, the plaintiff continues to contend that she
was wrongfully arrested on charges of shoplifting. In support of this contention,

1

she repeats the allegation that the store manager presented two differing
statements regarding the list of allegedly stolen items and says the manager lied
about observing her shoplifting on the store camera. Additionally, although it is
worded in extremely vague fashion, the plaintiff appears to allege that the police
officer wrongfully arrested her in light of his inability to identify illegal activity
from the security camera recording. However, the plaintiff’s objections are
insufficient to overcome the governmental defendants’ qualified immunity and fail
to show that the individual private defendant conspired with state actors to violate
her rights.1 Without more, the plaintiff has failed to state a valid claim under 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
Therefore, having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the
materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation and the
plaintiff’s objections thereto, the court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s
report is due to be and hereby is ADOPTED and the recommendation is
ACCEPTED. Accordingly, the federal claims in this action are due to be
dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), for failing to

1

As long as his belief is reasonable, a police officer does not have to ultimately be correct
in his belief that he has probable cause to make an arrest. Rodriguez v. Farrell, 280 F.3d 1341, 1347
(11th Cir. 2002). In this instance, based upon the totality of the allegations before the court, there
is no showing that the arresting officer lacked actual or arguable probable cause to make the arrest
and no reason to vitiate his qualified immunity.
2

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Any state law claims asserted in
the complaint are due to be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1367(c)(3). A Final Judgment will be entered.
DONE, this 4th day of February, 2013.

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3