United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, Jr., District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Gerrilyn G. Brill's Final Report and Recommendation ("R&R") . The R&R considers Plaintiff Tess Hollis Andriatti's ("Plaintiff") Complaint for Mandamus Relief  ("Complaint"), "Motion for Amendment to Correct Defendants Names on Habeas Corpus, Forma Pauperis & Mandamus"  ("First Motion to Amend"), and "Motion to Amend Defendants on Amended Complaint"  ("Second Motion to Amend"). The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and that Plaintiff's First Motion to Amend and Second Motion to Amend be denied as moot.
Also pending before the Court are Plaintiff's "Motion for Court to Order and Compel Release"  ("First Motion to Compel Release"), "Motion for Writ of Mandamus Compelling Immediate Release"  ("Second Motion to Compel Release"), "Motion for Default Judgment as to Neil Warren"  ("First Motion for Default Judgment"), and "Motion for Default Judgment as to Neil Warren and State of Georgia"  ("Second Motion for Default Judgment").
On December 4, 2013, Plaintiff, an inmate at the Cobb County Adult Detention Center in Marietta, Georgia, filed her Complaint, requesting that the Court issue a writ of mandamus "against the clerk of the Court in order to compel the clerk of the Court to issue a [Writ of Habeas Corpus] in this case." (Complaint at 1). Plaintiff states that she has been imprisoned against her will for a "victimless crime, " wrongfully denied bond by the state court, and that the state court lacks personal jurisdiction over her because she is a 68-year-old woman. (Id.). The Court construes Plaintiff's Complaint as a request that the Court issue a writ of mandamus compelling the state court to release her from custody.
On December 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed her "Amendment to Complaint" , stating that the Complaint listed the wrong defendant, and that the correct defendant was Neil Warren ("Defendant"). On January 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed her First Motion to Amend, which requested that the Court amend the name of the defendants in this action to remove Mike Burke. On February 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed her Second Motion to Amend, requesting that the Court add Judge Dorothy Robinson, Sheriff "Neal Warren, " "Victor Reynols - D.A., " and "Rebecca Keaton - Superior Court Clerk."
On February 10, 2014, the Magistrate Judge granted  (the "IFP Order") Plaintiff's Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis  (the "IFP Application"), ordering Plaintiff to pay the full statutory fee of $350 as funds are deposited in her inmate account. On February 10, 2014, the Magistrate Judge also recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). (R&R at 2-3). The Magistrate Judge noted that the Court did not have authority to issue a writ of mandamus compelling state officers or the state court to perform their official duties. (Id.).
On February 14, 2014, Petitioner filed her first objections  ("First Objection") to the R&R. On February 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed her second objections  ("Second Objection") to the R&R and her objections  ("Objections to the IFP Order") to the Magistrate Judge's IFP Order. On April 23, 2014, Petitioner filed her First Motion to Compel Release. On May 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed her Second Motion to Compel Release, First Motion for Default Judgment and Second Motion for Default Judgment.
A. Standard of Review
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). A district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). With respect to those findings and recommendations to which a party has not asserted objections, the district judge must conduct a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983).
1. The R&R and Plaintiff's Objections
Plaintiff asserts that she does "not have a pending criminal case" and is not "currently facing criminal charges." (First Objection at 1; Second Objection at 1), and therefore the Magistrate Judge's application of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), "cannot be used [because] [t]his case is not an open case with pending state criminal prosecution[s] and [Petitioner] is not being held on criminal charges." (First Objection at 2). The Magistrate Judge, however, did not rely upon Younger, but instead dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff appears to have filed objections identical to her objections ...