Fuller v. Gates et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 2/27/2015. (AVC)
2015 Feb-27 PM 01:26
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
DELANO RENEE FULLER,
) Case No.: 6:13-cv-01766-RDP-SGC
CAPT. JIM GATES, et. al.,
On January 12, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a report recommending that Plaintiff’s first
motion to amend his complaint (Doc. 12) be granted and this action be dismissed for failure to state
a claim on which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and/or (2). (Doc. 18).
On February 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation. (Doc. 21).
Contained within Plaintiff’s objections is what purports to be a second motion to amend the
complaint prefaced by the statement it is made “in recap and an attempt to give a closing argument
in the hope of no over-sights.” (Id. at 14-21). Also pending is Plaintiff’s motion requesting an
evidentiary hearing. (Doc. 17).1
Plaintiff’s objections consist largely of restatement of arguments he has already presented
regarding threats, disciplinary infractions, and work release issues. The Magistrate Judge considered
and correctly rejected these arguments, and Plaintiff’s restatement of these arguments does not alter
In this particular motion, Plaintiff also indicates his willingness to settle his claim against Captain Jim Gates
and inquires as to whether Captain Gates has a made a settlement offer. Captain Gates has not been served with a copy
of Plaintiff’s complaint because this case is still at the § 1915A screening step.
the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, these objections are
That portion of Plaintiff’s submission purporting to be a motion to amend the complaint
largely repeats Plaintiff’s objections to the report and recommendation. (See Doc. 21 at 14-21). To
the extent Plaintiff requests to amend his complaint for a second time, that request is DENIED.
Plaintiff was already afforded a chance to amend his complaint, and the filing of objections is not
a proper vehicle through which to make new allegations or present additional evidence.
Furthermore, even if the additional facts and exhibits underlying Plaintiff’s request to amend are
considered, Plaintiff has still failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including
the report and recommendation and the response thereto, the court is of the opinion that the
Magistrate Judge’s report is due to be and is hereby ADOPTED and her recommendation is
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s first motion to amend his complaint (Doc. 12) is
GRANTED, any second motion to amend the complaint contained in Plaintiff’s objections to the
report and recommendation (Doc. 21) is DENIED, Plaintiff’s motion for an evidentiary hearing
(Doc. 17) is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and/or
(2) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. A Final Judgment will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED this
day of February, 2015.
R. DAVID PROCTOR
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?