Patel v. Owens et al

Filing 60

ORDER adopting re 44 Report and Recommendations; granting 55 Motion to Amend/Correct and referring the amended complaint to the Magistrate Judge. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 12/11/13. (bcw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION
SUBODCHANDRA T. PATEL,
Plaintiff,
V.

6: 12-cv-105
JANET BREWTON,
Defendant.
[I)
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), ECF
No. 44, to which objections by both parties have been filed. ECF Nos. 46; 51. After a de novo
review of the record, the Court concurs with the R&R—and thus overrules Subodchandra Patel's
objections—insofar as it dismisses Patel's (1) claims against Brian Owens and Bruce Chatman;
(2) conspiracy claims; and (3) cause of action for deprivation of property. The Court also
concurs with the R&R's refusal to dismiss Patel's access to courts and retaliation claims, thus
overruling Brewton's objections.
Brewton, however, raises an issue in her objection to the R&R that merits closer
attention. In his motion to amend the amended complaint, which the R&R granted, Patel asserts
new claims for violations of his due process, equal protection, Seventh Amendment rights.

See

ECF No. 34 at 5. The R&R, which purports to conduct the frivolity review required by 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, never addresses those claims at all, very likely because the Magistrate Judge
believed the motion to amend the amended complaint "only corrects certain items in Plaintiffs
Amended Complaint and does not set forth any additional claims." ECF No. 44 at 1. Because

the granted motion to amend in fact contains new claims, the Court REFERS Patel's amended
complaint—minus the claims dismissed by this Order's adoption of the R&R—to the Magistrate
Judge for him to once again conduct the required § 1915A review.

The itday,çf December, 2013

AVANT EINFIELD, JUDGE/
UNITED STATES DISTRICT CØLJRT
SO1JTHERN DISTRICT OF GbRGIA