Hill v. Zon et al
Filing
10
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 6 Final Report and Recommendation. The 1 Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 5/21/2015. (adg)
Plaintiff’s Complaint, however, does not assert any specific allegations against
Defendants.
Plaintiff alleges that an unspecified criminal charge was pending against
him, but the statute of limitations applicable to that charge expired in March 2014.
(Complaint at 3). Plaintiff alleges he was subsequently arrested for “traffic
misdemeanors” and released on bond in September 2014. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges
further that, on January 6, 2015, Judge Eugene M. Benton revoked Plaintiff’s bond
and ordered him held on the unspecified criminal charge as well as the traffic
misdemeanors. (Id.). Plaintiff seeks monetary relief and release from
confinement. (Id. at 4).
On March 24, 2015, the Magistrate Judge granted [5] Plaintiff’s Application
to Proceed in forma pauperis [4]. On April 2, 2015, the Magistrate Judge screened
Plaintiff’s Complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and concluded that
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants should be dismissed because Plaintiff fails to
assert any specific allegations against Defendants, and, to the extent that Plaintiff
sought to raise claims regarding Plaintiff’s ongoing criminal proceedings, such
claims should be dismissed pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
(R&R at 3-4). Plaintiff did not file any objections to the R&R.
2
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
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
Plaintiff did not object to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. The Court thus
reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations for plain error. See
Slay 714 F.2d at 1095.
The Magistrate Judge noted that Plaintiff did not assert any specific
allegations against the named Defendants. (R&R at 3). Plaintiff’s Complaint,
thus, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to the Defendants,
3
and the Magistrate Judge properly recommended that the Complaint be dismissed.
The Magistrate Judge noted further that, to the extent that Plaintiff is asserting
claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding his pending criminal proceeding,
Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Younger.
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (absent extraordinary circumstances, federal
courts should abstain from interfering with ongoing state proceedings). The
Magistrate Judge also concluded that Plaintiff is not entitled to obtain release from his
imprisonment in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See, e.g.,
Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78, (2005) (“This Court has held that a prisoner
in state custody cannot use a § 1983 action to challenge ‘the fact or duration of his
confinement.’ He must seek federal habeas corpus relief (or appropriate state
relief) instead.”) (internal citations omitted). The Court finds no plain error in the
Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation. See Slay, 714 F.2d at 1095.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Gerrilyn G. Brill’s Final
Report and Recommendation [6] is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that that Plaintiff Jermaine LeJuane Hill’s
Complaint [1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
4
SO ORDERED this 21st day of May, 2015.
_______________________________
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?