Spinks v. Bailey et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 8/31/2016. (KEK)

FILED
2016 Aug-31 PM 04:23
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
DEXTER LEON SPINKS,

Plaintiff,
v.
JOHNNY W. BAILEY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 5:15-cv-01580-MHH-SGC
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The magistrate judge entered a report on June 24, 2016, in which she
recommended that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). (Doc. 8). Although the
magistrate judge advised the plaintiff, Dexter Leon Spinks, of his right to file
specific written objections within fourteen (14) days, the Court has received no
objections to 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 and considered the complaint and the magistrate
judge’s report, the Court finds no misstatements of law in the report and no plain
error in the magistrate judge’s description of Mr. Spinks’s factual allegations.
Therefore, the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

In

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court will dismiss this action without
prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
A separate order of final judgment will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED this August 31, 2016.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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).
2