McNair v. Bernard et al

Filing 7

OPINION AND ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman's Final Report and Recommendation 4 , overruling Plaintiff's Objections 6 and dismissing this action. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 10/2/17. (ddm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
OLLIE MCNAIR,
Plaintiff,
v.

1:17-cv-205-WSD

TERRY E. BERNARD, Chairman,
JAMES W. MILLS, Vice Chairman,
ALBERT R. MURRAY, Member,
BRAXTON T. COTTON, Member,
BRIAN OWENS, Member,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman’s
Final Report and Recommendation [4] (“R&R”), recommending that this action be
dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. Also before the
Court are Plaintiff Ollie McNair’s (“Plaintiff”) Objections [6] to the R&R.
I.

BACKGROUND
On January 4, 2017, Plaintiff, a prisoner, filed his pro se Civil Rights

Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [1] (“Complaint”), asserting constitutional
claims against five members of the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles
(the “Parole Board”). Plaintiff alleges that, in March 2015, Defendants revoked his

parole in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution. Plaintiff seeks damages for his injuries. On March 9, 2017, the
Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and issued his R&R,
recommending that this action be dismissed on the grounds that Defendants are
immune from suits for damages. On March 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Objections
to the R&R.
II.

DISCUSSION
A.

Legal Standards
1.

Frivolity Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

A federal court must screen “a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner
seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental
entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court is required to dismiss the complaint if it
is “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,”
or if it “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). A claim is frivolous, and must be dismissed, where it
“lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091,
1100 (11th Cir. 2008). To state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
“a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
2

(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “[I]f the
district court sees that an affirmative defense would defeat the action, [dismissal on
the grounds of frivolity] is allowed.” Clark v. State of Ga. Pardons & Paroles Bd.,
915 F.2d 636, 640 (11th Cir. 1990).
2.

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

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 (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 objections have not been asserted, the Court must
conduct a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093,
1095 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984). In view of Plaintiff’s
Objections, the Court conducts a de novo review of the record.
B.

Analysis

The Eleventh Amendment bars claims for damages against parole boards
and parole board members sued in their official capacities. See Fuller v. Georgia
3

State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 851 F.2d 1307, 1308 (11th Cir. 1988) (affirming
the district court’s conclusion that the Georgia parole board was “entitled to
sovereign immunity pursuant to the eleventh amendment”); see also
Jackson v. Georgia Dep’t of Transp., 16 F.3d 1573, 1575 (11th Cir. 1994)
(“Under the Eleventh Amendment, state officials sued for damages in their official
capacity are immune from suit in federal court.”). The Eleventh Circuit also
“repeatedly ha[s] held that individual members of the Parole Board are entitled to
absolute quasi-judicial immunity from a suit for damages.” Holmes v. Crosby,
418 F.3d 1256, 1258 (11th Cir. 2005); see Fuller, 851 F.2d at 1310
(“[T]he individual members of the Parole Board are entitled to absolute
quasi-judicial immunity from a suit for damages.”). This action is dismissed
because Plaintiff asserts claims for damages against Defendants, and each
Defendant is immune from suit as a member of the Parole Board. See Clark,
915 F.2d at 641 n.2 (“[T]he absolute immunity of the defendant would justify the
dismissal of a claim as frivolous.”); Holmes, 418 F.3d at 1258 (“[T]he district
court erred in permitting the claims for monetary damages to proceed against the
individual Board members.”).

4

III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman’s

Final Report and Recommendation [4] is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections [6] are
OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED this 2nd day of October, 2017.

5