Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wilson v. Fulton County

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

August 29, 2017

CHRISTOPHER B. WILSON, Plaintiff,
v.
FULTON COUNTY, THEODORE JACKSON, Sheriff, and JOHN DOE, Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge J. Clay Fuller's Final Report and Recommendation [5] (“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 [8] to the R&R, Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [7] (“First Motion to Amend”), and Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint [9] (“Second Motion to Amend”).

         I. BACKGROUND

         On April 25, 2017, Plaintiff, a prisoner, filed his pro se Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [1] (“Complaint”), asserting a variety of claims against Fulton County, Fulton County Sheriff Theodore Jackson (“Sheriff Jackson”), and John Doe, an “administrator” (together, “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).

         On July 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).

         On July 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.” ([7] at 3).[1] 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 Amendments.” ([9]).

         II. LEGAL STANDARDS

         A. Frivolity Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

         A 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).

         Plaintiff 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).

         B. Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

         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 (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 court.”).[2]

         C. Analysis

         1. Plaintiff's Claims ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.