United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
ROBERT D. BAYSE, Plaintiff,
WARDEN A. HOLT et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Linda T.
Walker's Non-Final Report and Recommendation 
(“R&R”), recommending under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A that Plaintiff's retaliation claims against
Defendants Warden A. Holt and Arthur Chaney be allowed to
proceed, Plaintiff's claim of deliberate indifference to
medical needs be dismissed without prejudice, and all of
Plaintiff's remaining claims and all Defendants be
dismissed. Also before the Court are Plaintiff Robert D.
Bayse's (“Plaintiff”) Objections 
to the R&R.
March 15, 2017, Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed her
pro se Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983  (“Complaint”), alleging
violations of her constitutional rights by a number of
correctional officers and the prison warden while she was
confined at Phillips State Prison (“Phillips”).
Plaintiff alleges that (1) Defendants Sanford and Dozier
exercised deliberate indifference toward her medical need for
gender reassignment surgery for her gender dysphoria; (2)
Defendant B. Brown engaged in derogatory statements and
harmful actions toward Plaintiff amounting to excessive
force, harassment, and retaliation; (3) Defendants Holt and
Chaney retaliated against her for complaining to Phillips
officials and external agencies about their mistreatment of
her; and (4) Defendant Holt generally failed to protect her
in 2016 from Defendant Chaney and others. (Compl. at 3-4,
25, 2017, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff's
Complaint and issued her R&R, recommending that this
action be allowed to proceed in part and dismissed in part
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. On June 19, 2017, Plaintiff
filed her Objections to the R&R. While difficult to
evaluate, the Court concludes that Plaintiff reiterates, as
objections, (1) her claim for deliberate indifference
relating to her need for gender reassignment surgery (Obj. at
2-5); and (2) her claims against Defendant B. Brown for his
alleged derogatory statements and harmful actions (Obj. at
1-2). The Court considers these as Plaintiff's objections
to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations on
Plaintiff's deliberate indifference and derogatory
statements and harmful actions claims.
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 her 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 F. App'x 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 F. App'x 863, 864 (11th Cir.
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). 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).
Court first considers, on de novo review, whether
(1) Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim or (2)
Plaintiff's claims relating to Defendant B. Brown's
various alleged derogatory statements and harmful actions are
viable claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court, in the
absence of an objection, reviews the remainder of the R&R
for plain error.