Moore v. Quality Corrections Health Care et al

Filing 14

ORDER - Having reviewed the complaint and the the report and recommendation, the Court adopts the magistrate judges report and accepts the magistrate judges recommendation. Therefore, the Court dismisses without prejudice all of the plaintiffs claims in this action, with the exception of her Fourteenth Amendment medical claims against Nurse Doris. The Court refers the plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment medical claims against Nurse Doris to Chief Magistrate Judge Ott for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 8/1/2016. (KEK)

FILED
2016 Aug-01 AM 08:36
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

RHONDA GAIL MOORE,
Plaintiff,
v.
QUALITY CORRECTIONS
HELATH CARE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 5:15-cv-00802-MHH-JEO
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER

The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation on February 8,
2016, recommending that the plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment medical claims
against Tuscumbia City Jail, Colbert County Jail, Quality Correctional Health
Care, Inc., and individual defendants Holiday, Wear, Logan, and Kurn be
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 9). The magistrate judge
also recommended that the plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment medical claims
against Nurse Doris be referred to the magistrate judge for additional proceedings.
(Id.). The plaintiff has not filed objections to the report and recommendation.1
1

On April 13, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file objections to the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. (Doc. 10). On April 22, 2016, the magistrate
judge granted the plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time and ordered her to file objections
within fourteen (14) days of the date of the order. (Doc. 11). On May 4, 2016, the plaintiff filed

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).2
Having reviewed the complaint and the the report and recommendation, the
Court adopts the magistrate judge’s report and accepts the magistrate judge’s
recommendation.

Therefore, the Court dismisses without prejudice all of the

plaintiff’s claims in this action, with the exception of her Fourteenth Amendment
medical claims against Nurse Doris. The Court refers the plaintiff’s Fourteenth
Amendment medical claims against Nurse Doris to Chief Magistrate Judge Ott for
further proceedings.

a second motion for an extension of time to file objections. (Doc. 12). The plaintiff stated that
she did not receive “a copy of said Document 10” and could not submit her objections until she
received of copy of the document. (Id.). On May 9, 2016, the magistrate judge advised the
plaintiff that document 10 was her motion for extension of time to file objections to the report
and recommendation, filed on April 13, 2016. (Doc. 13). The magistrate judge ordered the
plaintiff to file objections within ten days. (Doc. 13 at 1-2). The plaintiff failed to file
objections.
2

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).

DONE and ORDERED this August 1, 2016.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE