Clem v. Limestone County et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION adopting the March 11, 2016 report and recommendation. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 6/30/2016. (KMG)
2016 Jun-30 PM 04:44
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
ROBERT A. CLEM,
LIMESTONE COUNTY, et al.,
Case No. 5:15-cv-01058-MHH-SGC
On March 11, 2016, the magistrate judge filed a report in which she
screened plaintiff Robert A. Clem’s pro se amended complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
Based on her evaluation of the factual
allegations in Mr. Clem’s amended complaint (Doc. 14) and the legal defenses
which she anticipated to Mr. Clem’s claims, the magistrate judge recommended
that the Court dismiss Mr. Clem’s complaint without prejudice for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 15). The magistrate judge advised
Mr. Clem that he had the opportunity to file specific written objections to her
report and recommendation within fourteen (14) days, and she explained that
failure to object to her factual findings would bar review of those findings “except
for plain error.” (Doc. 15, p. 23). The Court has not received written objections
from Mr. Clem. On this record, the Court reviews the magistrate judge’s report
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).1
Having carefully reviewed the amended complaint and the report and
recommendation, the Court finds no misstatements of law in the report, and the
Court finds no plain error in the magistrate judge’s description of the factual
allegations in the amended complaint.2 Therefore, the Court accepts the magistrate
judge’s recommendation and finds that this action should be dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failing to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
A Final Judgment will be entered.
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. §§
The Court also reviewed Mr. Clem’s original complaint. (Doc. 1). Mr. Clem provided
additional factual allegations in his amended complaint; he stated the forms of relief that he
seeks in his original complaint. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6; Doc. 14, pp. 9-10).
DONE and ORDERED this June 30, 2016.
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?