HELTON v. Baden et al
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 6 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiff's Objections are overruled. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Inmate C.J., Plaintiff's claims of interference with Plaintiff's legal mail, and any conspiracy claims are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Plaintiff's retaliation claims against Warden Baiden, Deputy Warden Christopher Railey, Deputy Warden Christine Cross, and Unit Manager Frederick Gammage shall be allowed to go forward. Ordered by Judge W. Louis Sands on 8/16/2012. (bcl)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Warden JOSEPH BADEN, et al.,
CASE NO.: 1:11-CV-134 (WLS)
Before the Court is an Order and Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge
Thomas Q. Langstaff, filed October 21, 2011. (Doc. 6). It is recommended that Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendant Inmate C.J., Plaintiff’s claims of interference with Plaintiff’s legal
mail, and any conspiracy claims be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), but that
Plaintiff’s retaliation claims against Warden Baden, Deputy Warden Christopher Railey, Deputy
Warden Christine Cross, and Unite Manager Frederick Gammage shall be allowed to go forward.
(Doc. 6 at 8-9). Magistrate Judge Langstaff also denied Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary
injunction and request for appointment legal counsel. (Doc. 6 at 8).
Plaintiff’s “Motion Not to Dismiss Injunctive Relief,” which the Court interprets as
Plaintiff’s Objection, challenges only Judge’s Langstaff’s Order regarding injunctive relief.
(Doc. 11 at 1). To the extent that Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 11) fail to address the remaining
recommendations and orders made in Judge Langstaff’s Order and Recommendation (Doc. 6),
the Court finds that any objections not made thereto are WAIVED.
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO OCTOBER 21, 2011 ORDER
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) states that a “party may serve and file objections
to” a Magistrate Judge’s non-dispositive order “within fourteen days after being served with a
copy” and “[t]he district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set
aside any part of the order that is clearly-erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (reciting same “clearly erroneous or contrary to law”
The period for objections expired on Friday, November 7, 2012. (See generally Docket).
Plaintiff’s “Motion Not to Dismiss Injunctive Relief” was not filed until November 9, 2011, with
no explanation provided for the delay. (Doc. 11). As such, it was not timely filed and will not
be considered. 1 Therefore, Plaintiff’s Objections as found in “Motion Not to Dismiss Injunctive
Relief” (Doc. 11) to Judge Langstaff’s October 21, 2011 Order (Doc. 6) are OVERRULED.
United States Magistrate Judge Langstaff’s October
Recommendation (Doc. 6), is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and made the Order of this Court for
reason of the findings made and reasons stated therein together with the reasons stated and
conclusions reached herein. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Inmate C.J., Plaintiff’s claims
of interference with Plaintiff’s legal mail, and any conspiracy claims are DISMISSED pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
Plaintiff’s retaliation claims against Warden Baden, Deputy
Plaintiff’s objections, even if they were timely, are not persuasive. “Clear error” is a highly deferential standard of
review. As the Supreme Court has explained, a finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to
support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed.” Holton v. City of Thomasville Sch. Dist., 425 F.3d 1325, 1350 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal citations
and quotation marks omitted). The standard for overturning a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive order is “a very
difficult one to meet.” Thornton v. Mercantile Stores Co., Inc., 180 F.R.D. 437, 439 (M.D.Ala.1998) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff’s objections simply relate his alleged injuries, restate his requests for injunctive
relief and a lawyer, and fail to show that Judge Langstaff’s Order (Doc. 6) was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Accordingly, this Court finds that Petitioner’s “Motion Not to Dismiss Injunctive Relief” (Doc. 11) fails to rebut the
legally sound Order of Judge Langstaff.
Warden Christopher Railey, Deputy Warden Christine Cross, and Unite Manager Frederick
Gammage shall be allowed to go forward.
SO ORDERED, this 16th day of August, 2012.
/s/ W. Louis Sands
THE HONORABLE W. LOUIS SANDS,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?