Dunham v. Zanders et al

Filing 104

ORDER overruling 103 Objections. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 06/24/2019. (thb)

FILED
U.S.OISTRiCT COURI
AUGURVA DiV.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20I9JUN25 fti19:5l
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SO.ij!Si'.Oi- GA.

DUBLIN DIVISION

ANTONIO LAMAR DUNHAM,
Plaintiff,
CV318-018

V.

TREVON GILBERT, Correctional Officer;
SCOTT WILKES, Warden; DR. MARY
ALSTON; and DR. RITTER,
Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate at Baldwin State Prison in Hardwick, Georgia, commenced the

above-captioned case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 24, 2019, the Magistrate Judge
denied Plaintiffs motion to amend his complaint to add new claims against former defendant
Warden Sam Zanders and Defendant Dr. Ritter. (Doc. no. 97.) On June 4, 2019, Plaintiff

submitted objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order, in which he argues (1) his proposed
amended complaint states a claim as to the claims the Court initially allowed to proceed; and

(2) the Magistrate Judge should not have relied solely on Defendants' assertion Plaintiff
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to his new claims. (Doc. no. 103.)

When considering objections to a Magistrate Judge's ruling on a non-dispositive
matter, the District Judge must "modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly

erroneous or is contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). "A ruling is clearly erroneous where
either the magistrate judge abused his discretion or the district court, after reviewing the

entirety of the record, is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
made." Jackson v. Deen. CV 412-139, 2013 WL 3991793, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 2, 2013)
(citing Pigott v. Sanibel Dev.. LLC, CV 07-0083-WS-C, 2008 WL 2937804, at *5 (S.D. Ala.

July 23, 2008)). "A decision by the magistrate judge is contrary to law where it either fails to
follow or misapplies the applicable law." Id. (citations omitted).
First, the Court already allowed Plaintiffs remaining original claims to proceed past

screening and the discovery period as to those claims is ongoing. Second, although

Defendants argued failure to exhaust, the Magistrate Judge did not rely on this basis in
denying Plaintiffs motion to amend. (Doc. no. 97). Indeed, the Magistrate Judge denied the
motion because Plaintiffs new claims against Warden Zanders and Dr. Ritter fail to state a
claim. (Id. at 2-5.)

The Magistrate Judge's decision to deny Plaintiffs motion to amend was neither
clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs

objections to the Magistrate Judge's^Grder

SO ORDERED this

^day c

,2019, at Augusta, Georgia.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE