HAYNES v. OWENS et al

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING 19 Report and Recommendations, GRANTING 12 Motion to Dismiss Complaint; GRANTING 13 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Order to Show Cause; DENYING 20 Motion to Dismiss Complaint. Ordered by U.S. District Judge MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 3/25/2014. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
ERIK ESTRADA HAYNES,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRIAN OWENS and SHEVONDAH
FIELDS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-339 (MTT)

ORDER
Before the Court is the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Stephen Hyles
(Doc. 19) on the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 12) and
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s order to show cause (Doc. 13). The Magistrate Judge
recommends dismissing the complaint because the Eleventh Amendment bars the
Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants in their official capacities, and the complaint
fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. He recommends dismissing the
Plaintiff’s motion, construed as a motion for a preliminary injunction or temporary
restraining order, because the Plaintiff has not shown a substantial likelihood of success
on the merits. Rather than object to the Recommendation, the Plaintiff has now moved
to dismiss his complaint. (Doc. 20).
Though Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A) ordinarily permits a plaintiff to dismiss his
complaint before an answer or a motion for summary judgment has been served, the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) prevents dismissal in this case. See Stone v.
Smith, 2009 WL 368620, at * 1 (S.D. Ga.). Otherwise, the Plaintiff would be able to

circumvent the PLRA’s three strikes provision once it has been recommended that his
case be dismissed. The Recommendation makes clear that dismissal in this case is a
strike against the Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The Court has reviewed the Recommendation, and the Court accepts and adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The
Recommendation is ADOPTED and made the order the Court. Accordingly, the
Defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint and to dismiss the Plaintiff’s order to
show cause (Docs. 12; 13) are GRANTED. The Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 20)
is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 25th day of March, 2014.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT