Turner v. Martin et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 12/7/2017. (KEK)
2017 Dec-07 AM 09:16
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CHARLES EDWARD TURNER,
JASON MARTIN, et al.,
Case No. 7:16-cv-01596-MHH-SGC
On August 14, 2017, the magistrate judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),
entered a report in which she recommended that the Court dismiss without prejudice
plaintiff Charles Edward Turner’s claims for failing to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. (Doc. 8). The magistrate judge advised Mr. Turner of his right to file
specific written objections to the recommendation. (Doc. 8, p. 10). To date, Mr. Turner
has not filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 1
The Clerk of Court mailed a copy of the magistrate judge’s August 14, 2017 report and
recommendation to Mr. Turner at the St. Clair Correctional Facility address that Mr. Turner
provided to the Court in his July 16, 2017 notice of change of address. (August 14, 2017 staff
entry; see also Doc. 7). The postal service did not return the mail as undeliverable. Therefore, it
appears that Mr. Turner received a copy of the report and recommendation. On September 22,
2017 and October 2, 2017, the Clerk of Court docketed notices of change of address in which
Mr. Turner provided a residential address. (Doc. 9; Doc. 10). On October 30, 2017, the Court
received a letter from Mr. Turner. (Doc. 11). The subject line of the letter states: “Requesting
extension.” (Doc. 11). In the letter, Mr. Turner explained that he received the magistrate judge’s
notice of right to object to the report and recommendation, but Mr. Turner was unable to respond
because of health issues. (Doc. 11). Mr. Turner stated that he was “willing now to answer the
court. . . .” (Doc. 11). On November 2, 2017, the Court entered an order in which it construed
Mr. Turner’s letter as a motion for an extension of time to file objections. (Doc. 12). The Court
gave Mr. Turner an additional 14 days to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation. (Doc. 12). The Clerk of Court mailed a copy of the Court’s November 2,
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). 2
The Court finds no misstatements of law in the report and no plain error in the
magistrate judge’s description of the relevant factual allegations in Mr. Turner’s
complaint. Therefore, the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s report and accepts her
The Court will enter a separate final judgment dismissing this action without
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
DONE and ORDERED this December 7, 2017.
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2017 order to Mr. Turner (see November 2, 2017 staff note), and the postal service has not
returned to the Court Mr. Turner’s copy of the order. More than 14 days have passed since the
Court entered the order on November 2, 2017, and Mr. Turner has not filed objections to the
report and recommendation or otherwise communicated with the Court.
When a party objects to a report in which a magistrate judge recommends dismissal of a claim,
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).
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?