PEARSON v. TAYLOR et al
ORDER adopting 74 Report and Recommendations; granting 17 Motion to Dismiss Complaint; granting 31 Motion to Dismiss Party. Ordered by U.S. District Judge HUGH LAWSON on 5/30/2014. (nbp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Civil Action No. 7:13-CV-26 (HL)
CEDRIC TAYLOR, et al.,
This case is before the Court on a Recommendation from United States
Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff (Doc. 74), entered May 2, 2014. Judge
Langstaff recommends granting the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Orr,
Philbin, and Taylor based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies
for his deliberate indifference claims. (Doc. 17, 31).
On May 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed his objections to the recommendation.
(Doc. 79). Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s objections on May 30, 2014 (Doc.
82), arguing that the Court should disregard Plaintiff’s objections for being filed
outside the permitted timeframe. When a magistrate judge enters a report setting
forth proposed findings and recommendations, “any party may serve and file
written objections to such proposed findings,” within 14 days. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). However, in the case of a pro se inmate, the Eleventh Circuit applies
the mailbox rule and considers a prisoner's pleading filed on the date he
delivered the document to the prison mailroom. Day v. Hall, 528 F3. 1315, 1318
(11th Cir. 2008). The court may presume that the prisoner delivered the pleading
for filing the same day he signed it: "Absent evidence to the contrary in the form
of prison logs or other records, we will assume that [the prisoner's] motion was
delivered to prison authorities the day . . . signed." Washington v. United States,
243 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11th Cir. 2001). The burden rests with the prison
authorities to prove the date a prisoner delivered a document to be mailed. Id.
Here, Plaintiff signed his objections on May 11, 2014, which falls within 14
days of the Magistrate’s recommendation. Even though the post mark indicates
that prison authorities placed Plaintiff’s envelope in the mail on May 21, 2014,
and the clerk’s office did not receive the filing until May 23, 2014, Defendants
have presented no evidence that Plaintiff did not deliver his objections for mailing
on the same day he signed his submission. Therefore, the Court may consider
Plaintiff’s objections to the recommendation.
The Court conducted a de novo review of the Recommendation and
objections. Upon review, the Court accepts and adopts the Recommendation.
Plaintiff’s objections are overruled. The Court grants Defendants Orr, Philbin, and
Taylor’s motions to dismiss. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter final judgment
in favor of these Defendants.
SO ORDERED, this 30th day of May, 2014.
s/ Hugh Lawson______________
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE
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?