Gafford v. Dunn et al

Filing 10

ORDER - The Court finds no misstatements of law in the report and no plain error in the magistrate judges description of the relevant facts. Therefore, the Court adopts the magistrate judges report and accepts his recommendation. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C . § 1915A(b), the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mr. Gaffords claims against the Alabama Department of Corrections, Jefferson Dunn, and Warden Willie Thomas in his official capacity. The Court REFERS Mr. Gaffords remaining Eighth Amendment claim to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 6/28/2017. (KEK)

FILED
2017 Jun-28 AM 09:56
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION

DAVID SCOTT GAFFORD,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFERSON DUNN, et al.,
Defendants.

}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

Case No.: 7:16-cv-01397-MHH-TMP

ORDER
The magistrate judge entered a report on October 12, 2016 in which he
recommended that the Court dismiss without prejudice plaintiff David Scott
Gafford’s claims against the Alabama Department of Corrections, Jefferson Dunn,
and Warden Willie Thomas in his official capacity.

(Doc. 8, p. 12).

The

magistrate judge also recommended that the Court refer the case back to him for
further proceedings on Mr. Gafford’s Eighth Amendment claim against Warden
Thomas in his individual capacity. (Doc. 8, p. 12). The magistrate judge advised
Mr. Gafford of his right to file objections to the report and recommendation within
14 days. (Doc. 8, pp. 12-13). To date, Mr. Gafford has not filed objections to the
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).1
The Court finds no misstatements of law in the report and no plain error in
the magistrate judge’s description of the relevant facts.

Therefore, the Court

adopts the magistrate judge’s report and accepts his recommendation.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT
PREJUDICE Mr. Gafford’s claims against the Alabama Department of
Corrections, Jefferson Dunn, and Warden Willie Thomas in his official capacity.
The Court REFERS Mr. Gafford’s remaining Eighth Amendment claim to the
magistrate judge for further proceedings.
DONE and ORDERED this June 28, 2017.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

When a party objects to a report, a district court must “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)(B)-(C).
2