United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
CHRISTOPHER B. WILSON, Plaintiff,
FULTON COUNTY, THEODORE JACKSON, Sheriff, and JOHN DOE, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge J. Clay
Fuller's Final Report and Recommendation 
(“R&R”), recommending that this action be
dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Also before the Court
are Plaintiff Christopher B. Wilson's
(“Plaintiff”) Objections  to the R&R,
Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint  (“First
Motion to Amend”), and Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint  (“Second Motion to Amend”).
April 25, 2017, Plaintiff, a prisoner, filed his pro
se Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983  (“Complaint”), asserting a variety of
claims against Fulton County, Fulton County Sheriff Theodore
Jackson (“Sheriff Jackson”), and John Doe, an
“Defendants”). (Compl. at 3). Plaintiff alleges
he “was granted bond on Oct. 31st, 2016, but
bond was not posted nor arrived at (over to) the Fulton
County Jail until Nov. 25th, 2016.” (Compl.
at 3). He does not elaborate on this allegation or provide
additional information in support of his claims. Plaintiff
asserts claims for false imprisonment, excessive confinement,
and violations of his Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights. (Compl. at 3-4). He seeks declaratory judgment and
damages. (Compl. at 5).
5, 2017, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff's
Complaint and issued his R&R, recommending that this
action be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. On July 10,
2017, Plaintiff filed his Objections to the R&R, seeking
leave to add the “State of Georgia” and the
“Clerk of Court of Judge Constance Russell” as
defendants in this action. (Obj. at 1-2). Plaintiff, in his
Objections, also “prays for the Court to provide
supplemental jurisdiction of the common law tort of
negligence to his claim.” (Obj. at 2).
14, 2017, Plaintiff's First Motion to Amend was entered
on the docket. In it, Plaintiff seeks permission to file an
amended complaint, adding a Sixth Amendment
“substantive due process claim” and state law
claims for negligence, false imprisonment, and
“unlawful (and excessive) confinement.” ( at
On July 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Second Motion to Amend,
requesting that the Court “list the State of Georgia as
proper defendant held responsible for his false imprisonment,
excessive confinement and violations of his due process and
liberty rights under the 4th and 5th
Frivolity Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
federal court must screen “a complaint in a civil
action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
entity or officer or employee of a governmental
entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court is
required to dismiss the complaint if it is “frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, ” or if it “seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b). A claim is frivolous, and must be dismissed,
where it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in
fact.” Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100
(11th Cir. 2008).
filed his Complaint pro se. “A document filed
pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro
se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held
to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007). Nevertheless, a pro se plaintiff must comply
with the threshold requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. See Beckwith v. Bellsouth Telecomms.
Inc., 146 Fed.Appx. 368, 371 (11th Cir. 2005).
“Even though a pro se complaint should be
construed liberally, a pro se complaint still must
state a claim upon which the Court can grant relief.”
Grigsby v. Thomas, 506 F.Supp.2d 26, 28 (D.D.C.
2007). “[A] district court does not have license to
rewrite a deficient pleading.” Osahar v. U.S.
Postal Serv., 297 Fed.Appx. 863, 864 (11th Cir. 2008).
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
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 (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
objections have not been asserted, the Court must conduct a
plain error review of the record. United States v.
Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984). Plaintiff does not
specifically object to any findings in the R&R. The Court
thus reviews the R&R for plain error. See id.;
Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir.
1988) (“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
Plaintiff's Claims ...