McCaa v. Edwards

Filing 61

MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING 59 MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 7/21/2015. (JLC)

FILED
2015 Jul-21 PM 04:03
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY WAYNE MCCAA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ETTA EDWARDS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Case No.: 7:12-CV-2688-VEH
)
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation (doc. 59) on June 26,
2015. On July 9, 2015, the plaintiff filed his “Objection” (doc. 60) to that report and
recommendation. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (doc. 53),
his [Supplemental] Motion for Default Judgment (doc. 57), and the Report and
Recommendation are ripe for review by the undersigned.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681
F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). A district judge “shall 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)(C). This requires that the district judge “give
fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a
party.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990) (citation
omitted). A district judge must review legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence
of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir.
1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d
28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994). That said, the court also acknowledges the principle that
“[n]either the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo,
findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” United
States v. Woodard, 387 F.3d 1329, 1334 (11th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). Moreover,
absent specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual
findings de novo. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993) (noting
that when a party “did not file specific objections to factual findings by the magistrate
judge, there was no requirement that the district court de novo review those findings”)
(emphasis in original) (citations omitted).
THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In the report and recommendation, the magistrate judge recommended that the
plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (doc. 53) be granted, and that the plaintiff’s
2

[supplemental] motion for default judgment (doc. 57) be termed as moot. The magistrate
judge further recommended that, in light of the facts as found and the plaintiff’s failure
to show any actual damages, judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiff and against
the defendant Etta Edwards in the sum of $1.00 as nominal damages.
THE OBJECTIONS
Although the plaintiff has titled his filing an Objection, the statements in it, do not
accurately reflect what the magistrate judge actually wrote in his report and
recommendation. Further, none of the plaintiff’s objections, even if accurate, have any
impact on any issue to be decided by this court. Finally, the plaintiff has still failed to
supply any factual or legal basis for his claim of $300,000 in damages.
ANALYSIS
The plaintiff has pointed to no error in the magistrate judge’s finding of no
showing of damages that would support an award of more than nominal damages.
Further, this court finds there was no error in that finding or in the application of law to
that finding. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the magistrate judge’s findi9ngs are
due to be adopted and his recommendation is due to be accepted.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the court will adopt the magistrate
judge’s and accept his recommendations. A final order will be entered separately.
3

DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of July, 2015.

VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS
United States District Judge

4