WINSTON v. ADUCCI-WASHINGTON et al

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING and ACCEPTING the 27 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, OVERRULING Plaintiff's 30 Objections and FINDING AS MOOT Defendants' 22 MOTION to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 5/17/2018. (JLC)

FILED
2018 May-17 PM 02:47
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION
YOLANDA WINSTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ADUCCI-WASHINGTON, Retired
Warden, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 7:17-cv-01099-VEH-SGC
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The magistrate judge entered a report on April 19, 2018, recommending: (1)
this action be dismissed without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); and (2) that the defendants’
motion to dismiss be denied as moot. (Doc. 27). After obtaining an extension of time
to object (see Docs. 28, 29), the plaintiff filed a pleading on May 3, 2018, which the
court construes as the plaintiff’s timely objections to the report and recommendation
(Doc. 30).
In her amended complaint, brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the plaintiff alleges the
defendants’ deliberate indifference and failure to provide proper medical care violated
her Eight Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. (Doc. 11 at 12).

The amended complaint also alleges the defendants were negligent under the Federal
Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). (Id.).
In her objections, the plaintiff does not challenge the recommendation that her
Eighth Amendment claims are due to be dismissed. Instead, the objections contend
Aliceville FCI has failed to prevent slip and falls, violating the plaintiff’s right to a
safe environment. (Doc. 30 at 1). The objections opine the accident which caused the
plaintiff’s toe injury “could have been prevented had Aliceville FCI not been
negligent.” (Id. at 2). As noted in the report and recommendation, Bivens does not
provide any cause of action against federal employees for negligence. (Doc. 27 at 7).
Rather, a claim based on the negligence of a federal employee must be brought
against the United States under the FTCA. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). The plaintiff’s failure
to name the United States as a defendant is therefore fatal to her claim. See Minneci
v. Pollard, 565 U.S. 118, 124 (2012) (the defendant in an FTCA action is “the United
States, not the individual officers who [] committed the violation”); Simpson v.
Holder, 184 F. App’x 904, 908 (11th Cir. 2006) (“The United States is the only
proper defendant in an FTCA action.”) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 2679(a)-(b); Kennedy v.
U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998); Galvin v. OSHA, 860 F.2d
181, 183 (5th Cir. 1988); Mars v. Hanberry, 752 F.2d 254, 255 (6th Cir. 1985)).

2

Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court
file, including the report and recommendation and the plaintiff’s objections, the
plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. (Doc. 30). The magistrate judge’s report is
ADOPTED and the recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. 27). Therefore, in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), this action is due to be dismissed without
prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The
defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED as MOOT. (Doc. 22).
A separate order will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of May, 2018.

VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS
United States District Judge

3