HULEY v. MASSEE et al

Filing 85

ORDER ADOPTING 80 Report and Recommendations and GRANTING 68 and 70 Motions for Summary Judgment. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 2/21/2018. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
TRAVISE HULEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
Sheriff BILL MASSEE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-CV-32 (MTT)

ORDER
United States Magistrate Judge Stephen Hyles recommends Defendants Dr.
Buczynsky and Nurse Bell’s motions for summary judgment (Docs. 68; 70) be granted.
Doc. 80 at 1, 13. Plaintiff Travise Huley has objected to the recommendation. Doc. 83.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has perfomed a de novo review of the
portions of the Recommendation to which Huley objects, and the Court accepts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The
Recommendation (Doc. 80) is ADOPTED and made the order of this Court. The
Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Doc. 68; 70) are GRANTED. Accordingly,
Huley’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.
MOTIONS TO AMEND
In his objection, it appears that Huley alleges numerous new claims against the
Defendants including that they are liable for “perjury, slander,” and “unconstitutional
behavior.” Doc. 83 at 2. To the extent Huley attempts to allege new bases for relief, the
Court has discretion to grant or deny such a motion. Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287,
1292 (11th Cir. 2009) (“[A] district court has discretion to decline to consider a party’s
argument when that argument was not first presented to the magistrate judge.”); Cf.
Stephens v. Tolbert, 471 F.3d 1173, 1176 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding district court does

not abuse “its discretion when it accepts an argument that had not been presented to
the magistrate judge”); see also Newsome v. Chatham Cty. Det. Ctr., 256 F. App’x 342,
344 (11th Cir. 2007). The Court DENIES Huley’s motion to amend because it is
untimely, and, in any event, amendment would be futile because Huley provides only
conclusory allegations and thus fails to state a claim. See Doc. 83. Huley has also filed
a “Statement of Claim” in which he attempts to state an excessive force claim related to
an event that occurred on January 25, 2018. Doc. 82. The claim Huley asserts in this
“Statement of Claim” is wholly unrelated to the remaining claims in this lawsuit against
Defendants Bell and Buczynsky. Accordingly, to the extent this is an attempt to amend
his current complaint to include those claims, that motion is DENIED. If Huley wishes to
pursue this claim, the proper avenue to do so is through filing a new lawsuit.

SO ORDERED, this 21st day of February, 2018.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2