United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
SUNDAY SUNNY BOYEJO, Cobb Cnty. ID # 865094, Plaintiff,
COBB CNTY. ADULT DET. CTR., et al., Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION 42U.S.C. § 1983
D. EVANS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court are the Magistrate Judge's Final Report
and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 6) and
Plaintiffs objections thereto (Doc. 8).
reviewing a Magistrate Judge's R&R, the district
court "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). "Parties filing objections to a
magistrate's report and recommendation must specifically
identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive,
or general objections need not be considered by the district
court." United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d
1353, 1361 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Marsden v.
Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988)) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Absent objection, the district
court judge "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
in part, the findings and recommendations made by the
magistrate [judge], " 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and
"need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record" in order to accept the
recommendation. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, advisory committee note,
1983 Addition, Subdivision (b). In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Court has conducted a de novo review
of those portions of the R&R to which Plaintiff objects
and has reviewed the remainder of the R&R for plain
error. See United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093,
1095 (11th Cir. 1983).
Magistrate Judge reviewed Plaintiffs initial complaint and
gave him an opportunity to amend it to allege a plausible
claim for relief, stating:
Plaintiff has perhaps stated a plausible excessive
force claim against Deputies Eubanks and Vitteotoe, but not
against any of the other named Defendants. Indeed, in order
to proceed, all of Plaintiff s excessive force claims require
greater detail regarding the circumstances of the alleged
abuse. See Seibert v. Comm'r, Ga. Dep't of
Corr., 15-10501, 2017U.S. App. LEXIS 3247, at *7 (11th
Cir. Feb. 23, 2017) (quoting [Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009)] to the effect that "[t]hreadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice"; and citing
Am. Dental Ass'n v. Cigna Corp., 605F.3d 1283,
1293 (11th Cir. 2010), for "dismissing a claim where the
allegations were 'conclusory' "). And verbal
harassment alone cannot be the basis for a constitutional
claim against jail officers.
(Doc. 4 at 4-5 (citation omitted)). The Magistrate Judge also
Although Plaintiff may have stated a plausible claim
regarding the denial of constitutionally adequate medical
care, he has not named a medical care provider who might be
amenable to suit in this action. If it is his contention that
Lt. Gordon alone made the decision to deny him medical
treatment, he must clarify how that occurred.
(Id. at 6).
filed a virtually identical "amended" complaint
(Doc. 5), except for the voluminous but irrelevant material
attached thereto (see Id. at 11-81), and the
Magistrate Judge has recommended dismissing that complaint
due to Plaintiffs failure to state a plausible claim for
relief; his failure to obey the Court's previous order
that he file an amended complaint; and his improper joinder
of disparate claims, alleging excessive force against a
series of defendants without demonstrating any connection
between or among the alleged incidents, medical deliberate
indifference, illegal conditions of confinement and
violations of his First Amendment rights.
(Doc. 6 at 6).
"objections" are a restatement of his initial
claims for a third time, along with an attempt to add new
claims and new defendants. (See generally Doc. 8).
has not filed a specific objection to the Magistrate
Judge's R&R, and the Court declines to consider the
new allegations in his objections because Plaintiff did not
present those allegations to the Magistrate Judge, even
though he was given a second opportunity to do so. See
Williams v. McNeil,557 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009)
("hold[ing] that a district court has discretion to