Bramlett v. Dunn et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION adopting 17 magistrate judge's report and accepting her recommendation. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 11/30/2018. (YMB)
2018 Nov-30 PM 05:31
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WILLIAM DALE BRAMLETT,
JEFFERSON S. DUNN, et al.,
Case No.: 5:17-cv-1371-MHH-SGC
Pro se plaintiff William Dale Bramlett filed this civil rights action against
defendants ADOC Prison Commissioner Jefferson S. Dunn and Warden
Christopher Gordy. (Doc. 1, p. 10). Mr. Bramlett asked the Court to allow him to
proceed without prepaying the filing fee for his action. (Doc. 2). The magistrate
judge assigned to this case granted Mr. Bramlett’s in forma pauperis request.
(Doc. 3, p. 1).
Consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and this Court’s
customary practices, the magistrate judge screened Mr. Bramlett’s complaint.
(Doc. 17, p. 1). On July 27, 2018, the magistrate judge recommended that the
Court dismiss this action without prejudice because Mr. Bramlett has failed to state
a federal claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 17, p. 9). The magistrate
judge also recommended that the Court dismiss any state law claims without
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). (Doc. 17, p. 9). The magistrate judge
advised Mr. Bramlett of his right to file written objections within 14 days. (Doc.
17, pp. 9-10).
Before the magistrate judge issued her report, on April 3, 2018, Mr. Bramlett
notified the Court of his change of address to the Easterling Correctional Facility
located in Clio, Alabama. (Doc. 16, p. 1). The Postal Service returned the report
and recommendation mailed to Mr. Bramlett at that address as undeliverable.
(Doc. 18). The Court’s research indicated that Mr. Bramlett was not an Easterling
inmate but instead was in custody at the Louisville Metro County Jail. (Doc. 19, p.
When the undersigned reviewed the record in this case, it was unclear
whether Mr. Bramlett ever received the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation. Therefore, on November 14, 2018, the Court asked the Clerk to
please resend the report to Mr. Bramlett and gave him an additional 14 days to
object. (Doc. 19, p. 2). The Court asked the Clerk to please mail a copy of the
report to Mr. Bramlett at both his Easterling and Louisville addresses. (Doc. 19,
The Postal Service returned Mr. Bramlett’s Easterling mail as
undeliverable on November 28, 2018. (Doc. 20). The Postal Service has not
returned Mr. Bramlett’s Louisville mail.
Mr. Bramlett’s second deadline to object to the report has passed. To date,
Mr. Bramlett has not objected to the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, and Mr. Bramlett has not requested additional time from the
Court in which to object.
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
Based on its review of the record in this case, the Court finds no
misstatements of law in the report and no plain error in the magistrate judge’s
factual findings. Therefore, the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s report and
accepts her recommendation.
The Court will issue a separate dismissal order consistent with this
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. §
DONE and ORDERED this November 30, 2018.
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?