Gray v. Olens

Filing 5

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING the 3 Final Report and Recommendation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is GRANTED in forma pauperis status. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Complaint 1 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court CERTIFIES that Plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 9/24/2014. (anc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER JASON GRAY,
GDC ID 847664,
Plaintiff,
v.

1:14-cv-1895-WSD

SAMULE S. OLENS,
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge E. Clayton Scofield III’s
Final Report and Recommendation [3] (“R&R”). The R&R considers Plaintiff
Christopher Jason Gray’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint [1] (“Complaint”). The
Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff be granted in forma pauperis status
solely for the purpose of dismissal and that his Complaint be dismissed.
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is serving a life sentence for kidnapping, rape, aggravated sodomy,

aggravated assault, and armed robbery. On June 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed his civil
rights Complaint, seeking to compel Mr. Samuel S. Olens,1 the Attorney General

1

Plaintiff misspelled Mr. Olens’s first name as “Samule,” which is reflected
in the caption of this case.

of Georgia, to interpret and explain “in writing dating from 1978 to 1995:” 1) what
constitutes kidnapping with bodily injury; 2) what constitutes the offense of rape;
and 3) O.C.G.A. § 16-5-21(a)(1).
On June 30, 2014, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim. (R&R at 2). The Magistrate
Judge noted that the Complaint was frivolous and that a more carefully drafted
amended complaint would not state a claim with respect to these issues. (Id.). The
Magistrate Judge recommended granting Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma
pauperis solely for the purpose of dismissing the action. The Magistrate Judge
recommended also that the Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that
any appeal would not be taken in good faith. Plaintiff did not file any objections to
the R&R.
II.

DISCUSSION
A.

Legal Standard

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); Williams v.
Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert denied, 459 U.S. 1112
(1983). A district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of

2

the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). With respect to those findings and
recommendations to which a party has not asserted objections, the district judge
must conduct a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d
1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983).
B.

Analysis

As Plaintiff has not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, the Court
reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations for plain error. See
Slay 714 F.2d at 1095.
Plaintiff does not cite to any authority, and the Court has likewise found no
authority, in support of Plaintiff’s contention that he is entitled to compel the
Attorney General to interpret and explain the statutes under which he was
convicted in 1994. The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s Complaint was
frivolous, and that amending the Complaint would be futile, and properly
recommended that the Court dismiss the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A;
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). The Magistrate Judge also properly
found that an appeal would not be take in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3);
Hankerson v. Keller, 11-cv-733, 2012 WL 1066175, at *3(N.D. Ga. Mar. 28, 2012)
(“A party demonstrates good faith by seeking appellate review of any issue that is

3

not frivolous when judged under an objective standard.”) (citing
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962)). The Court finds no plain
error in these findings and recommendations. See Slay, 714 F.2d at 1095.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge E. Clayton Scofield

III’s Final Report and Recommendation [3] is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is GRANTED in forma
pauperis status.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint [1] is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court CERTIFIES that Plaintiff’s
appeal is not taken in good faith.

SO ORDERED this 24th day of September, 2014.

4