Brown, Jr. v. Jarriel et al

Filing 21

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 16 Report and Recommendations; denying 18 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 11/20/12. (bcw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION
LEO BROWN, JR.,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV612-034
DON JARRIEL; BRUCE CHATMAN;
DOUG WILLIAMS; Deputy Warden
DUPREE; JOHN W. PAUL;
Dr. T. JONES; Dr. BROOME;
Dr. JOHNSON; JANET BREWTON;
LOUIE SMITH; BRIAN OWENS;
ROBERT JONES; Captain SANDER;
CO II LEWIS; and CO I WALTER,
Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff Leo Brown, Jr. ('Plaintiff'), an inmate currently confined at Troup County
Correctional Institution in LaGrange, Georgia, filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 contesting certain conditions of his confinement at Georgia State Prison in
Reidsville, Georgia. After the requisite frivolity review, it appeared Plaintiffs attempted
claims were unrelated. By Order dated June 11, 2012, Plaintiff was directed to advise
the Court, within thirty (30) days, as to which claim or related claims he desired to
pursue in this case. Plaintiff failed to timely respond to that Order, and Plaintiff's
Complaint was dismissed by Order dated July 26, 2012. One day later, on July 27,
2012, the Clerk received a new Complaint from Plaintiff and stamped it as filed that day.
(Doc. No. 14). However, Plaintiffs new Complaint was executed on July 16, 2012, and
is deemed filed on that date. Even so, Plaintiff still failed to timely file the new

AO 72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Complaint. However, the Court declined to strictly apply the time frame mandated by
the June 11, 2012, Order and directed the Clerk to reopen this case. After the requisite
frivolity review was performed on Plaintiff's new Complaint, the Magistrate Judge
recommended that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 16). In response to the Magistrate Judge's
Report recommending dismissal, Plaintiff filed a document titled Motion to Amend. (Doc.
No. 18). That document was docketed as a motion to amend Plaintiffs Complaint;
however, a review of the document shows that it is actually an Objection to the
Magistrate Judge's Report, dated October 25, 2012. After an independent and de novo
review of the record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge correctly determined that Plaintiff alleged no facts in
support of his conclusory allegations of various forms of misconduct and that Plaintiffs
Complaint does not tie specific allegations to specific Defendants. Plaintiffs Objection
does not remedy these failures. Because Plaintiff has not set forth "a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief," his Complaint is due to be
dismissed. FED. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
Plaintiffs Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is
without merit and is overruled.

The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge is adopted as the Opinion of the Court. Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED. The
Clerk of Court is directed to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal. To the extent
that Plaintiff actually intended the document titled Motion to Amend to be a motion to

AO 72A
(Rev. 8182)

2

amend his Complaint, that Motion is DENIED because it does not set forth any
allegations.
SO ORDERED, this

day of

DISTRICT OF

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)