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 Alan J.
Baverman's Final Report and Recommendation 
(“R&R”), recommending that this action be
dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a
claim. Also before the Court are Plaintiff Ollie McNair's
(“Plaintiff”) Objections  to the R&R.
January 4, 2017, Plaintiff, a prisoner, filed his pro
se Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983  (“Complaint”), asserting constitutional
claims against five members of the Georgia State Board of
Pardons and Paroles (the “Parole Board”).
Plaintiff alleges that, in March 2015, Defendants revoked his
parole in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff seeks damages
for his injuries. On March 9, 2017, the Magistrate Judge
screened Plaintiff's Complaint and issued his R&R,
recommending that this action be dismissed on the grounds
that Defendants are immune from suits for damages. On March
23, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Objections to the R&R.
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). To state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “[I]f
the district court sees that an affirmative defense would
defeat the action, [dismissal on the grounds of frivolity] is
allowed.” Clark v. State of Ga. Pardons &
Paroles Bd., 915 F.2d 636, 640 (11th Cir. 1990).
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). In
view of Plaintiff's Objections, the Court conducts a
de novo review of the record.
Eleventh Amendment bars claims for damages against parole
boards and parole board members sued in their official
capacities. See Fuller v. Georgia State Bd. of
Pardons & Paroles, 851 F.2d 1307, 1308 (11th Cir.
1988) (affirming the district court's conclusion that the
Georgia parole board was “entitled to sovereign
immunity pursuant to the eleventh amendment”); see
also Jackson v. Georgia Dep't of Transp., 16 F.3d
1573, 1575 (11th Cir. 1994) (“Under the Eleventh
Amendment, state officials sued for damages in their official
capacity are immune from suit in federal court.”). The
Eleventh Circuit also “repeatedly ha[s] held that
individual members of the Parole Board are entitled to
absolute quasi-judicial immunity from a suit for
damages.” Holmes v. Crosby, 418 F.3d 1256,
1258 (11th Cir. 2005); see Fuller, 851 F.2d at 1310
(“[T]he individual members of the Parole Board are
entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity from a suit for
damages.”). This action is dismissed because Plaintiff
asserts claims for damages against Defendants, and each
Defendant is immune from suit as a member of the Parole
Board. See Clark, 915 F.2d at 641 n.2 (“[T]he
absolute immunity of the defendant would justify the
dismissal of a claim as frivolous.”); Holmes,
418 F.3d at 1258 (“[T]he district court erred in
permitting the claims for monetary damages to proceed against
the individual Board members.”).
foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman's Final Report and
Recommendation  is ADOPTED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objections
 are OVERRULED IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that this action is