PARHAM V. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
ORDER ADOPTING 14 Report and Recommendations. The Plaintiff's excessive force claims against Defendants Holloman, Hendrix, Ingram, and White are allowed to proceed for factual development. The Plaintiff& #039;s claims against the Georgia Department of Corrections, Lieutenant Roderick Daniels, and any remaining claims against Defendants Holloman, Hendrix, Ingram and White are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 8/30/2017. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
CARLOS DE’ANDRE PARHAM,
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-130 (MTT)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), United States Magistrate Judge Stephen
Hyles has conducted a preliminary screening of Plaintiff Carlos De’andre Parham’s
recast complaint (Doc. 10). See generally Doc. 14. The Magistrate Judge recommends
that the Plaintiff’s excessive force claims against Defendants C.E.R.T. Unit Manager
Holloman, Medical Administrator/C.E.R.T. Officer Hendrix, C.E.R.T. Officer Ingram, and
C.E.R.T. Officer White should proceed for further factual development. Doc. 14 at 5,
15. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Plaintiff’s remaining claims be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Id. There is no objection to the Recommendation. The Court has reviewed the
Recommendation, and the Court adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s excessive force
claims against Defendants Holloman, Hendrix, Ingram, and White are allowed to
proceed for factual development. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s claims against the Georgia
Department of Corrections, Lieutenant Roderick Daniels, and any remaining claims
against Defendants Holloman, Hendrix, Ingram and White are DISMISSED without
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.1
SO ORDERED this 30th day of August, 2017.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
It appears the statute of limitations is about to run on the Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims as the events upon
which those claims rely occurred in September 2015. Doc. 10 at 5; Wilson v. Hamilton, 135 F. App’x 213,
214 (11th Cir. 2005) (“In Georgia . . . the statute of limitations for all § 1983 claims is two years.”). “Where
a dismissal without prejudice has the effect of precluding the plaintiff from re-filing his claim due to the
running of the statute of limitations, it is tantamount to a dismissal with prejudice.” Stephenson v. Doe,
554 F. App’x 835, 837 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing Justice v. United States, 6 F.3d 1474, 1482 n.15 (11th Cir.
1993)). But see Scott v. Muscogee Cty., Ga., 949 F.2d 1122, 1123 (11th Cir. 1992) (Georgia’s renewal
statute (O.C.G.A. § 9-2-61) may apply in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action). If this dismissal is effectively with
prejudice, dismissal is nonetheless appropriate because the Plaintiff was informed that his initial
complaint failed to state a claim, advised of the insufficiencies in his complaint, and ordered to file an
amended complaint, which he did but that also failed to state a claim. Docs. 8 (ordering the Plaintiff to
amend his complaint); 10 (The Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint); see also Friedlander v. Nims, 755 F.2d
810, 813 (11th Cir. 1985) abrogated on other grounds by Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Indus. Am. Corp.,
314 F.3d 541, 542 (11th Cir. 2002); Marantes v. Miami-Dade Cty., 649 F. App’x 665, 673 (11th Cir. 2016)
(“[O]ur case law does not require a district court to give a pro se litigant multiple opportunities to amend.”);
Bloom v. Alvereze, 498 F. App’x 867, 884 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing Welch v. Laney, 57 F.3d 1004, 1009
(11th Cir. 1995) (“After a district court grants an opportunity to amend and identifies the pleading’s
deficiencies, dismissal with prejudice is appropriate.”).
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?