Stovall v. Gwathney et al

Filing 40

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 6/6/2024. (KAM)

FILED
2024 Jun-06 PM 03:48
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL LEON1 STOVALL
Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTT SCHAFFER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:22-cv-1110-RDP-GMB

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation on May 1, 2024
recommending the dismissal of this action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) as
frivolous and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. 36). Plaintiff
Michael Leon Stovall has filed a “Motion in Rebuttal to Magistrate Report and Recommendation,”
which the court construes as an objection to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 39).
Plaintiff objects to the Clerk of Court’s termination of defendants who were not named as
defendants in his Final Amended Complaint. (Doc. 39 at 1-2). The court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that the order to amend instructed Plaintiff to name as defendants only those
persons who violated his constitutional rights and identify them as defendants both in the heading
and in Part I of the complaint. (Doc. 18 at 3). The order also told Plaintiff that the Final Amended
Complaint cannot refer back to any previous complaints.2 (Doc. 18 at 1). Because Plaintiff did
not name the “original defendants” in his Final Amended Complaint, the Clerk correctly

In his Final Amended Complaint, Plaintiff identifies his middle name as “Leon” but indicates that he also
has been known as “Michael Levon Stovall.” (Doc. 25 at 2). The Alabama Department of Corrections has registered
Plaintiff as “Michael Levon Stovall.” See https://doc.alabama.gov/InmateHistory.
1

2

After filing his original complaint, Plaintiff filed Second, Third, and Fourth Amended
Complaints. See Docs. 15, 16 & 17.

terminated those defendants from this action. Plaintiff’s remaining objections to the Report and
Recommendation are frivolous and without merit.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are

OVERRULED.
After careful consideration of the record in this case, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, and Plaintiff’s objections, the court ADOPTS the Report and ACCEPTS the
recommendation. Consistent with that recommendation and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), this action is
due to be dismissed without prejudice as frivolous and for failing to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.
A final judgment will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED this June 6, 2024.

_________________________________
R. DAVID PROCTOR
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

2