United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Catherine M.
Salinas's Final Report and Recommendation 
(“R&R”). The R&R recommends the Court
dismiss this action without prejudice. Also before the Court
are Plaintiff Marcus Anthony Terrell's
(“Plaintiff”) Objections to the R&R .
Also before the Court are Plaintiff's Motions to Compel
, , Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint , and
Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages  (collectively, the
who has been incarcerated in the Georgia state prison system
since May 2013, is serving a life sentence plus a term of
years for rape and other crimes. In November 2015, Plaintiff
filed Terrell v. Municipal Corp. of Gwinnett, No.
1:15-cv-4101-WSD (N.D.Ga. Dismissed Sept. 27, 2016)
(“Terrell I”). On September 27, 2016,
the Court dismissed the action without prejudice, finding,
among other things, that substantially all of the events
alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint occurred in the Southern
District of Georgia. The Court sent Plaintiff the
instructions and forms necessary to file a lawsuit in the
Southern District of Georgia.
September 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Complaint  in this
action, containing substantially similar allegations as in
Terrell I. On October 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed his
Amended Complaint .
February 3, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued her R&R.
The Magistrate Judge found that, as in Terrell I,
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint does not state any
cognizable federal claims against the “Municipal
Corporation of Gwinnett.” The Magistrate Judge
determined that, to the extent Plaintiff intended to
incorporate by reference his original Complaint, his claims
against Gwinnett County are barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). Even if
Plaintiff's claims were not barred by Heck, his
allegations relate to events that occurred in 2013 or
earlier, and they are time-barred by the two-year statute of
limitations that applies to Section 1983 claims in Georgia.
The Magistrate Judge found that, to the extent Plaintiff
seeks to sue Smith State Prison officials for actions taken
in Tattnall County, venue is proper in the Southern District
of Georgia. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommends the
Court dismiss this action without prejudice so that Plaintiff
may file his claims against the Smith State Prison officials
in the Southern District of Georgia.
February 8, 2017, through February 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed
his Motions to Compel, Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint,
and Motion for Leave to file Excess Pages. On February 15,
2017, Plaintiff field his Objections to the R&R. The
Objections consist largely of Plaintiff's recitation of
the history of various actions he has brought against
Review of a Magistrate Judge's R&R
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) (per curiam). 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). Where no party has objected to the report
and recommendation, the Court conducts only a plain error
review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714
F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam). 2.
Frivolity Review 28 U.S.C. § 1915A requires a
federal court to conduct an initial screening of a prisoner
complaint against a governmental entity, employee, or
official to determine whether the action is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
Plaintiff objects to the R&R, the Court conducts its
de novo review. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
alleges that “the Municipal Corporation of Gwinnett [is
responsible] for erecting unconstitutional policys [sic],
which was put enforce [sic] for reasons of discrimination,
& retaliation, in willful, corrupt, malicious, unskillful
manner, deliberate indifferent to Petitioner's First,
Sixth, Fith [sic], & Fourteenth, & Seventh, Amendment
U.S. Constitutional Rights.” (Am. Compl. at 5).
Plaintiff did not include any factual allegations in his
Amended Complaint to support this conclusory statement, and
the Court finds Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to
state a claim against the Municipal Corporation of
extent Plaintiff seeks to sue Smith State Prison officials
for actions they have taken in Tattnall County, Plaintiff
should file suit in the Southern District of Georgia.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Accordingly,
Plaintiff's claims against the Municipal Corporation of
Gwinnett are dismissed with prejudice, ...