Lynch v. Brasher et al
Filing
4
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING the 2 Final Report and Recommendation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 9/27/2013. (anc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
RAOUL LYNCH,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:13-cv-1195-WSD
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER S.
BRASHER, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Linda T. Walker’s Final
Report and Recommendation (R&R) [2].
Plaintiff Raoul Lynch (“Plaintiff”) is incarcerated at Hancock State Prison in
Sparta, Georgia, and he asserts, pro se, an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
alleges that the judge, prosecutor, and his defense attorney all failed to recognize
that the criminal charges on which he was tried in April 2011, in Fulton County,
Georgia, were barred by the statute of limitations. The Magistrate Judge reviewed
Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to screen actions that are frivolous
or malicious or which fail to state a claim or which seek money damages against
individuals who are immune from such relief. The Magistrate Judge concluded
that Plaintiff’s claims are barred because they imply his incarceration is invalid and
did not previously seek to invalidate his convictions. See Wilkinson v. Dotson,
544 U.S. 74, 81–82 (2005). The Magistrate Judge also concluded that Plaintiff
failed to assert viable claims under Section 1983 because Judge Brasher and the
prosecutor named in this action as a defendant have absolute immunity and the
Plaintiff’s defense lawyer at trial did not act under color of law. Plaintiff did not
file any objections to the Magistrate’s R&R.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59;
Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam).
With respect to those findings and recommendations to which a party has not
asserted objections, the Court must conduct a plain error review of the record.
United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983). The Court has review
the R&R for plain error, and finding none, adopts it.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge
Linda T. Walker’s Final Report and Recommendation (R&R) [2].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
2
SO ORDERED this 27th day of September, 2013.
3
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?