United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
CHRISTOPHER B. WILSON, Plaintiff,
J.O. BRAITHWAITE, CITY OF ALPHARETTA, and FULTON COUNTY, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DIJFFEY, 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 for failure to state a
claim. Also before the Court is Plaintiff Christopher B.
Wilson's (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Leave to
File Amended Complaint  (“Motion to Amend”).
February 11, 2017, Plaintiff, a prisoner, filed his pro
se Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983  (“Initial Complaint”). On July 5, 2017,
the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff's Initial
Complaint and issued his R&R, recommending that this
action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. On July 14,
2017, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, and proposed Amended
Complaint, were entered on the docket.
proposed Amended Complaint  alleges that, on July 30,
2015, Defendant J.O. Braithwaite (“Braithwaite”),
a Fulton County police officer, falsely stated, “in his
statement of wittnesses [sic], ” that Plaintiff
“did not show up.” (Am. Compl. at 2). Plaintiff
alleges that Braithwaite's statement “suggest[ed]
falsely [that Plaintiff] had abandoned the construction
project [he] was doing, ” when, in fact, he was
“incarcerated in Forsyth County Jail at the
time.” (Am. Compl. at 2). Plaintiff further alleges
that, on July 30, 2015, Braithwaite falsely stated, in his
“case supplemental, ” that Plaintiff “said
he had to be honest with [Braithwite] as he has used rest
[sic] of the money for other jobs. His hope was to complete
the other jobs although he has spread money throughout
various other jobs.” (Am. Compl. at 2). Plaintiff also
alleges that Braithwaite falsely stated, in an unnamed forum,
that Plaintiff “did not use the money he received from
victims for their project, hence he cannot repay them.”
(Am. Compl. at 3). Plaintiff states, confusingly, that he
“did tell [Braithwaite that Plaintiff] would be able to
complete upon [his] release and (or) be able to get [his]
crew to complete project if [Braithwaite] could call them, as
[Braithwaite] stated he did contact [Plaintiff's] crew
but never actually call[ed] them at all.” (Am. Compl.
at 3). Plaintiff does not explain, or elaborate on, these
asserts claims for “perjury 1st degree”;
“breach of oath of office 5 USC 3331”; “bad
faith and malicious prosecution”; “vindictive
prosecution”; “conspiracy against rights (18 USC
241)”; “false statements (etc)”;
intentional infliction of emotional distress;
“substantive due process violations of Plaintiff's
4th, 5th and 6th Amendments”; violations of the
“due process clauses of the 5th and 14th
Amendments”; “deprivation of liberty of the 4th
and 5th Amendments”; “state torts of false arrest
and false imprisonment due to false statements”;
“abuse of power as this abusive litigation in violation
of due process under color of law (18 USC 242)”;
“deprivation under color of law (18 USC 242)”;
“fraud (18 USC 1001)”; and “unlawful
seizure a violation of the th [sic] Amendment to the
Constitution.” (Am. Compl. at 3-5).
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). 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)). Mere
“labels and conclusions” are insufficient.
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). This
requires more than the “mere possibility of
misconduct.” Am. Dental, 605 F.3d at 1290
(quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). The well-pled
allegations must “nudge [plaintiff's] claims
across the line from conceivable to plausible.”
Id. at 1289 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
filed his complaints 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). 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).