Anthony v. Gordy et al

Filing 40

ORDER OVERRULING Plaintiff's 37 Objections and ADOPTING and ACCEPTING the 34 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. To the extent Plaintiff's 38 MOTION seeks to Amend his Second Amended Complaint against the remaining de fendants in their individual capacities to request twenty million dollars in monetary damages, the Motion is GRANTED, ORDER DENYING 39 MOTION for Bail/Bond. The Court ORDERS that all claims in this matter, except the Plaintiff's due process and conditions of confinement claims against Warden Gordy and his medical claims against Nurse McKay, Warden Gordy, and Warden Thomas are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The Court further ORDERS the remaining claims are REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 12/12/2018. (JLC)

FILED
2018 Dec-12 AM 09:45
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION
VERTIS ANTHONY,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN WILLIE THOMAS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 7:16-cv-00649-KOB-SGC

ORDER
The magistrate judge entered a report on October 23, 2018, recommending all
claims in this matter be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1) for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, except for
the plaintiff’s (1) due process and conditions of confinement claims against Warden
Gordy; and (2) medical claims against Nurse McKay, Warden Gordy, and Warden
Thomas. (Doc. 34). The report further recommended the plaintiff’s remaining claims
be referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Id.). On November
19, 2018, the plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. 37).
The plaintiff first objects to the referral of this matter to a magistrate judge.
(Doc. 37 at 1). The district court has statutory authority to delegate non-dispositive
pretrial matters to a magistrate judge for determination.
1

See 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(A). The district court need not obtain the consent of the parties before
assigning these matters to a magistrate judge. Id. at § 636(b)(1)(A)-(C). Therefore,
the court OVERRULES the plaintiff’s objections to the designation of a magistrate
judge to this matter.
Next, the plaintiff appears to challenge his conviction and sentence. (Doc. 37
at 2-4, 8-9). A prisoner challenging the “fact or duration” of his confinement and
seeking immediate or speedier release has but one remedy: a writ of habeas corpus.
See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). The plaintiff cannot obtain
habeas relief in this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Additionally, any habeas claims
were dismissed on February 28, 2017. (See Doc. 16). To the extent the plaintiff's
objections seek reinstatement of his habeas claims, the court DENIES the request.
(Doc. 37 at 9).
The plaintiff also restates his claims that his custody classification violates his
constitutional rights. (Doc. 37 at 5, 7-8). However, the plaintiff’s classification
status does not infringe upon or implicate any liberty interest under the Due Process
Clause. See Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88, n.9 (1976); Kramer v. Donald, 286
F. App’x 674, 676 (11th Cir. 2008). Therefore, the plaintiff’s claims against the
defendants concerning his custody classification are due to be dismissed.

2

Also pending are the plaintiff’s motions seeking bond and a twenty million
dollar payment from the State of Alabama. (Docs. 38, 39). To the extent the
plaintiff's motion seeks to amend his second amended complaint against the
remaining defendants in their individual capacities to request twenty million dollars
in monetary damages, the motion is GRANTED.1 (Doc. 38). The plaintiff’s motion
for bail or bond is DENIED. (Doc. 39).
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court
file, including the report and recommendation and the objections thereto, the
plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED, the magistrate judge’s report is ADOPTED,
and the recommendation is ACCEPTED. The court ORDERS that all claims in this
matter, except the plaintiff’s due process and conditions of confinement claims
against Warden Gordy and his medical claims against Nurse McKay, Warden Gordy,
and Warden Thomas are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The court further ORDERS the remaining claims are
REFERRED to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

1

The court notes that merely allowing the plaintiff to amend his complaint to request
such an amount in no way means that the court approves such damages request or that the
plaintiff is entitled to such an amount of damages if he first establishes liability.
3

DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of December, 2018.

___________________________________
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4