Cowlin v. Bennett et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 11/13/2018. (KEK)

FILED
2018 Nov-13 PM 12:06
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

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

GEORGE COWLIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAPTAIN JOHN HUTTON and
SERGEANT JAMES SEALEY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 7:17-cv-1746-MHH-HNJ

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On October 13, 2017, pro se plaintiff George Cowlin filed this action against
defendants Willie Bennett, John Hutton, and James Sealey. (Doc. 1). Mr. Cowlin
also moved to proceed in forma pauperis. The magistrate judge to whom this case
is assigned along with the undersigned district judge granted that motion. (Doc. 3).
On October 26, 2017, the magistrate judge ordered Mr. Cowlin to amend his
complaint. (Doc. 6). Mr. Cowlin filed an amended complaint on November 9,
2017, against Mr. Hutton and Mr. Sealey; Mr. Cowlin did not assert a claim
against Mr. Bennett. (Doc. 7).
The magistrate judge filed a report on July 2, 2018, recommending that this
Court dismiss this action without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),
for failing to state a claim. (Doc. 9). The magistrate judge advised Mr. Cowlin of

his right to file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days. (Doc. 9, p.
8). To date, Mr. Cowlin has not objected to the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, and Mr. Cowlin has not requested an opportunity to file an
amended complaint with respect to his contention that prison officials handcuffed
him to a wall for six or more hours. (Doc. 7, p. 5; Doc. 9, pp. 7-8).
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).
Based on its review of the record in this case, the Court finds no
misstatements of law in the report and no plain error in the magistrate judge’s
discussion of Mr. Cowlin’s factual allegations in the amended complaint. The
Court agrees with the magistrate judge -- Mr. Cowlin’s allegation (which is
assumed accurate at this early stage of the case) that prison officials cuffed him to
a wall for at least six hours is very concerning. But Mr. Cowlin has not tried to
correct the pleading deficiency that the magistrate judge identified with respect to
that allegation. Therefore, the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s report and
accepts his recommendation.
2

The Court will issue a separate final order consistent with this memorandum
opinion.
DONE this 13th day of November, 2018.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3