Boyejo v. Cobb County Adult Detention Center et al
ORDER and OPINION OVERRULING Plaintiff's 8 Objections and ADOPTING the 6 Final Report and Recommendation. The Court DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiff's 1 Complaint and 5 Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Orinda D. Evans on 8/8/2017. (sap)
f ;h.e'o., CWlMBERa :.~
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GE·--~Oedt -~
SUNDAY SUNNY BOYEJO,
Cobb Cnty. ID # 865094,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
COBB CNTY. ADULT DET. CTR., et al.,
PRISONER CIVIL ACTION
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Now before the Court are the Magistrate Judge's Final Report and
Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 6) and Plaintiffs objections thereto (Doc. 8).
In reviewing a Magistrate Judge's R&R, the district court "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)(l). "Parties filing
objections to a magistrate's report and recommendation must specifically identify
those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be
considered by the district court." United States v. Schultz, 565 F .3d 1353, 1361 (11th
Cir. 2009) (quoting Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (I Ith Cir. 1988))
(internal quotation marks omitted). Absent objection, the district court judge "may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made
by the magistrate LJudge]," 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), and "need only satisfy itself that
there is no clear error on the face of the record" in order to accept the
recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, advisory committee note, 1983 Addition,
Subdivision (b ). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b )(1) and Rule 72 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions
of the R&R to which Plaintiff objects and has reviewed the remainder of the R&R for
plain error. See United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983).
The Magistrate Judge reviewed Plaintiffs initial complaint and gave him an
opportunity to amend it to allege a plausible claim for relief, stating:
Plaintiff has perhaps stated a plausible excessive force claim against
Deputies Eubanks and Vitteotoe, but not against any of the other named
Defendants. Indeed, in order to proceed, all of Plaintiffs excessive force
claims require greater detail regarding the circumstances of the alleged
abuse. See Seibert v. Comm 'r, Ga. Dep 't of Corr., 15-10501, 2017 U.S.
App. LEXIS 3247, at *7 (11th Cir. Feb. 23, 2017) (quoting [Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)] to the effect that "[t]hreadbare recitals
of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice"; and citing Am. Dental Ass 'n v. Cigna Corp.,
605 F.3d 1283, 1293 (11th Cir. 2010), for "dismissing a claim where the
allegations were 'conclusory' "). And verbal harassment alone cannot
be the basis for a constitutional claim against jail officers.
(Doc. 4 at 4-5 (citation omitted)). The Magistrate Judge also stated:
Although Plaintiff may have stated a plausible claim regarding the denial
of constitutionally adequate medical care, he has not named a medical
care provider who might be amenable to suit in this action. If it is his
contention that Lt. Gordon alone made the decision to deny him medical
treatment, he must clarify how that occurred.
(Id. at 6).
Plaintiff filed a virtually identical "amended" complaint (Doc. 5), except for the
voluminous but irrelevant material attached thereto (see id. at 11-81 ), and the
Magistrate Judge has recommended dismissing that complaint without prejudice
due to Plaintiffs failure to state a plausible claim for relief; his failure to
obey the Court's previous order that he file an amended complaint; and
his improper joinder of disparate claims, alleging excessive force against
a series of defendants without demonstrating any connection between or
among the alleged incidents, medical deliberate indifference, illegal
conditions of confinement and violations of his First Amendment rights.
(Doc. 6 at 6).
Plaintiffs "objections" are a restatement of his initial claims for a third time,
along with an attempt to add new claims and new defendants. (See generally Doc. 8).
Plaintiff has not filed a specific objection to the Magistrate Judge's R&R, and the
Court declines to consider the new allegations in his objections because Plaintiff did
not present those allegations to the Magistrate Judge, even though he was given a
second opportunity to do so. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir.
2009) ("hold[ing] that a district court has discretion to decline to consider a party's
argument when that argument was not first presented to the magistrate judge").
Plaintiffs objections (Doc. 8) are therefore OVERRULED.
ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Final Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6) as the
ORDER and OPINION of the Court, and DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiffs
complaint, as amended (Docs. 1, 5), for the reasons stated in the R&R.
SO ORDERED this
day of August, 2017.
ORINDA D. EVANS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?