Royalty v. Williams et al

Filing 18

ORDER vacating 7 Report and Recommendations, adopting 14 Report and Recommendations, dismissing Plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and closing this civil action. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 04/25/2018. (thb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

GARRATT EUGENE ROYALTY,
Plaintiff,
CV 117-168

V.

ALFONZO WILLIAMS,Sheriff, Individual

Capacity and Official Capacity, et al.
Defendants.

ORDER

After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate

Judge's March 30, 2018 Report and Recommendation("R&R"), to which no objections have
been filed.

In lieu of objections. Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his amended complaint and a
"Motion for Objections." (Doc. nos. 16, 17.) In his motion to amend. Plaintiff asks the
Court to allow him to amend his complaint for the second time "to add new Defendants as

well as change his prayer for relief under 31 U.S.C. § 3723, indicating he is aware "he has
asked for to[o] much money," and asks the Court to exercise jurisdiction over his state law
claims. (Doc. no. 16.) Similarly, in his "Motion for Objections," Plaintiff asks the Court not
to dismiss his complaint and allow him to amend his claims under § 3723 and 28 U.S.C.
1346(b)(1), add new defendants, and consider his state law claims. (Doc. no. 17.) Because

Plaintiff does not contest the findings or recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in his
"Motion for Objections," the Court does not consider the motion an objection to the R&R.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(A), a party may amend his pleading
once as a matter of course within twenty-one days after service. Thereafter, a party may

amend a pleading "only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave." Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Courts should freely allow amendment. See Carter v. Broward Ctv.
Sheriffs Dep't Med. Dep't. 558 F. App'x 919, 923 (11th Cir. 2014) ("Leave to amend
should be freely given ... .")(citing Forman v. Davis. 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)); see also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) ("The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.").

However,"[a]... court may deny such leave where there is substantial ground for doing so,
such as undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments

previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of the amendment."
Muhammad v. Sapp. 494 F. App'x 953,958 (11th Cir. 2012)(quoting Reese v. Herbert, 527
F.3d 1253, 1263 (11th Cir. 2008)). An amendment is futile when the pleading that it seeks to
amend would still be subject to dismissal if the amendment were permitted.

Coventry

First. LLC v. McCartv. 605 F.3d 865, 870(11th Cir. 2010)("A proposed amendment may be

denied for futility 'when the complaint as amended would still be properly dismissed.'")
(quoting Cockrell v. Sparks. 510 F.3d 1307, 1310(11th Cir. 2007)).

As Plaintiff previously filed an amended complaint, he is not entitled to amend as a

matter of right. (See doc. nos. 12, 13.) Accordingly, although leave to amend is generally
freely given. Plaintiffs proposed amendment is improper because it would be futile. In the
March 30th R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommended Plaintiffs § 3723 and § 1346 claims

be dismissed for failure to state a claim because both require unlawful action by a federal

employee, and Plaintiff sued only employees of the Burke County Sheriffs Office and Burke

County Detention Center. (Doc. no. 14, p. 7.) Indeed, Plaintiffs factual allegations
exclusively involve actions by Burke County officials during the course of his pretrial
detention in the Burke County Detention Center. (Id at 1-4.) Plaintiff has never alleged

involvement by federal officials in either his original or amended complaints,(see doc. nos.

1, 13), and there is no reason to believe Plaintiff will be able to rewrite his complaint to
allege federal employees were actually responsible for the alleged wrongdoing.

Furthermore, it appears Plaintiff is attempting to fix each pleading deficiency as the

Court points it out. However,"Rule 15's liberal amendment standard is not an unqualified
license to fix every new defect as the court uncovers them." In re Engle Cases, 767 F.3d
1082, 1123 (11th Cir. 2014). Plaintiff initially added his § 3723 and § 1346 claims only after
the Magistrate Judge recommended Plaintiffs other claims be dismissed in the February 14,
2018 R&R. (Doc. nos. 7, 13.) Now that the Magistrate Judge recommends Plaintiffs new
claims be dismissed for failure to state a claim, he is again attempting to fix the newly
uncovered defects.

Because the amended complaint would still be subject to dismissal for failing to state

a claim even if the Court granted Plaintiffs motions, his proposed amendments are futile.
Coventry First. LLC. 605 F.3d at 870. Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motions to

amend and "Motion for Objections." (Doc. nos. 16, 17.)

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the March 30, 2018 R&R of the Magistrate Judge
as its opinion (doc. no. 14), VACATES the February 14, 2018 R&R, (doc. no. 7),
3

DISMISSES Plaintiffs amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted, and CLOSES this civil action.

SO ORDERED this /^S^day of

2018, at Augusta, Georgia.

CHIEF JUDGE

'STATES DISTRICT COURT
iRN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA