Brown v. Caldwell et al

Filing 47

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 42 Report and Recommendations ; granting 18 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 21 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED; and the Clerk of the Court is directed to TERMINATE this case from the court's active docket. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on 09/11/2014. (kab)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
MARTY BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DONALD S. CALDWELL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 7:13cv00553
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
By: Norman K. Moon
United States District Judge

Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). I
referred the matter to United States Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent for a report and
recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Judge Sargent correctly construed the
complaint as having been filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as a Bivens action allows damages
suits to be maintained against federal officials for violations of the United States Constitution,
and Plaintiff has named as defendants a Commonwealth’s Attorney for the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, an Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney for the City of Roanoke, and a sergeant in the
Roanoke City Police Department’s Warrant Service Unit.
Plaintiff alleges that the defendants held two criminal arrest warrants in the
Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office and the Police Department without properly informing a
court of their existence, in violation of his due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff further alleges that the defendants’
actions failed to comply with the provisions of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act,
(“IADA”), and violated his right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment to the United
States Constitution. The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Magistrate Judge recommends granting the defendants’ motions. Plaintiff filed
objections, but his objections are conclusory and reiterate arguments already presented, and thus
they lack the specificity required by Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and have
the same effect as a failure to object. See Veney v. Astrue, 539 F.Supp.2d 841, 845 (2008).
Moreover, having reviewed the report and recommendation, the objections thereto, and
pertinent portions of the record de novo in accordance with § 636(b)(1), I find that plaintiff’s
objections fail, and I adopt the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation in toto. Plaintiff’s
objections do not dislodge Judge Sargent’s proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law,
particularly the following:


The Commonwealth’s Attorney defendants are immune from suit in their official
capacities under the Eleventh Amendment, see Harter v. Vernon, 101 F.3d 334, 340 (4th
Cir. 1996) (citing Bockes v. Fields, 999 F.2d 788, 790-91 (4th Cir. 1993)); and they are
entitled to absolute immunity for acts within the scope of their prosecutorial duties, see
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 420 (1976); Springmen v. Williams, 122 F.3d 211,
213 (4th Cir. 1997).



Plaintiff has not been arrested on the two outstanding Virginia warrants against him, and
therefore plaintiff fails to assert plausible claims of a violation of either the IADA or his
Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. See Williamson v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App.
655, 658 (1992) (an arrest on a fugitive warrant in North Carolina does not constitute an
arrest on the underlying warrant in Virginia).



As plaintiff has not been “arrested” as contemplated in Virginia Code § 19.2-243, he is
not entitled to a trial on the charges contained in the warrants, his due process rights
under Virginia Code § 19.2-243 have not been implicated, and thus he fails to state a
claim that his due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were
violated.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s objections to the report and

recommendation (docket nos. 43, 46) are OVERRULED; the Magistrate Judge’s report and
recommendation (docket no. 42) is ADOPTED in its entirety; defendants’ motions to dismiss
(docket nos. 18, 21) are GRANTED; and the Clerk of the Court is directed to TERMINATE
this case from the court’s active docket.
2

The Clerk of the Court is directed to send copies of this order to the pro se plaintiff and to
all counsel of record.
ENTER: This _____ day of September, 2014.
11th

3