Clem v. Limestone County et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION adopting the March 11, 2016 report and recommendation. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 6/30/2016. (KMG)

FILED
2016 Jun-30 PM 04:44
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
ROBERT A. CLEM,
Plaintiff,
v.
LIMESTONE COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:15-cv-01058-MHH-SGC

MEMORANDUM OPINION
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).

(Doc. 15).

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
and recommendation.
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.

1

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).
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).
2

2

DONE and ORDERED this June 30, 2016.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3