Slate v. Christine et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 11/13/2018. (KEK)

FILED
2018 Nov-13 AM 11:53
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JASPER DIVISION
LACY SLATE, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. BRIAN CHRISTINE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 6:17-cv-01272-MHH-SGC

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On July 28, 2017, pro se plaintiff Lacy Slate, Jr. filed this action against
defendants Brian Christine, Rebecca L. Holmes, St. Vincent’s Hospital, and
Brookwood Medical Center. (Doc. 1, p. 1). Mr. Slate also asked for permission to
proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2).
The magistrate judge to whom this case originally was assigned granted Mr.
Slate’s in forma pauperis request on October 17, 2017. (Doc. 5, p. 2). The
magistrate judge pointed out several pleading and jurisdictional deficiencies in Mr.
Slate’s complaint and ordered Mr. Slate to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 5, pp.
2-7). Mr. Slate did so on May 11, 2018. (Doc. 9).
The magistrate judge reviewed Mr. Slate’s amended complaint and
recommended that the Court dismiss without prejudice Mr. Slate’s amended
complaint for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 10, p. 1). The magistrate judge explained

that Mr. Slate’s complaint does not contain a claim based on federal law, and Mr.
Slate’s factual allegations do not suggest that this Court may exercise diversity
jurisdiction over Mr. Slate’s state law action. (Doc. 10).
The magistrate judge advised Mr. Slate of his right to object to her
recommendation within fourteen (14) days. (Doc. 10, p. 9). To date, Mr. Slate has
not objected to 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).
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
description of Mr. Slate’s factual allegations. Therefore, the Court adopts the
magistrate judge’s report and accepts her recommendation.
The Court will issue a separate final order consistent with this memorandum
opinion.

2

DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of November, 2018.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3