Huley v. Massee et al

Filing 60

ORDER rejecting 55 Report and Recommendations and remanding back to Magistrate Judge for further consideration. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 2/22/2010. (nbp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA M AC O N DIVISION T R AV IS E HULEY, P la i n t i f f , v. P ro b a tio n Officer RICHARD G ID D E N S and Sheriff BILL M AS S E E , D e fe n d a n ts . ______________________________ : : : : : : : : : : :

C iv il Action No. 5:07-cv-56 (HL)

ORDER T h is matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States M a g is tra te Judge Claude W . Hicks Jr., entered January 22, 2010 (Doc. 55), in which re c o m m e n d s that the Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants Giddens (Doc. 10) and M a s s e e (Doc. 11) be denied. In his Motion to Dismiss, Defendant Massee raised several defenses. He a rg u e d that the Eleventh Amendment bars any claims against the Baldwin County S h e riff's Office, that the complaint fails to state a claim because in his official c a p a c ity he is not a "person" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that the p la in tiff has failed to effect service on him in his official capacity, and that the Prison L itig a tio n Reform Act ("PLRA") bars the plaintiff's claims because the plaintiff did not a lle g e any physical injury.

Defendant Giddens also raised several defenses in his Motion to Dismiss. S p e c ific a lly, he argued that the plaintiff's claims are barred, in part, by the applicable s ta tu te of limitations, that the plaintiff fails to allege a constitutional violation against h im , that the plaintiff failed to show an injury in fact under the PLRA, and that the p la in tiff's claims are barred by qualified immunity. T h e Magistrate Judge "conclude[d] that further factual development is n e c e s s a ry in this action," after "a careful review of the defendants' motions seeking d is m is s a l, the plaintiff's responses, the defendants' replies, and the other pertinent p le a d in g s of record." (Doc. 55). He then recommended that the Motions to Dismiss b e denied. D e fe n d a n t Massee has filed an objection to the Recommendation, and again ra is e s his Eleventh Amendment, cognizable claim, and PLRA arguments. Defendant G id d e n s has also filed an objection, wherein he argues that the allegations of the c o m p la in t fail to state a claim for relief, that the plaintiff's claim is barred by the s ta tu te of limitations, that he is entitled to qualified immunity, and that plaintiff's c la im s for compensatory and punitive damages are barred by the PLRA.1 D e fe n d a n t Giddens raises several new arguments in his objection. He c o n te n d s that he is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, that in his official c a p a c ity he is not a "person" pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that any state law c la im s are barred by the Georgia Tort Claims Act, and that he is entitled to quasiju d ic ia l absolute immunity from suit. W h ile district courts may consider new e vid e n c e and legal argument raised for the first time in an objection to a re c o m m e n d a tio n , they are under no obligation to do so. W illia m s v. McNeil, 557 F .3 d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009). The Court declines to consider these new legal a rg u m e n ts , and the Magistrate Judge should not consider them on remand either.
2
1

At no point in the Recommendation are Defendants' numerous defenses a d d re s s e d . The Court believes these defenses merit careful consideration, and the R e c o m m e n d a tio n does not make sufficient findings with respect to any of the d e fe n s e s . As a result, it is necessary to remand this matter to the Magistrate Judge fo r further consideration. The Magistrate Judge is instructed to consider and make w ritte n findings as to each defense raised by Defendants in their Motions to Dismiss, w h ic h are outlined in this Order. The Recommendation is rejected.

S O ORDERED, this the 22 n d day of February, 2010.

s / Hugh Lawson HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE m bh

3