United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DIJFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Justin S.
Anand's Final Report and Recommendation  (“Final
R&R”) recommending that this action be dismissed
for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Also before the Court are Plaintiff's Motions to Appoint
Counsel [3, 11] and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File
a Second Amended Complaint .
28, 2017, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint 
(“Am. Compl.”),  asserting various constitutional
claims, including claims for ineffective assistance of
counsel against his appointed public defender, Amanda
Grantham, her supervisor, Sarina Woods, and the Georgia
Public Defender Council (“GPDC”).
August 28, 2017, the Magistrate Judge screened
Plaintiff's Complaint and issued his Final R&R,
recommending that the action be dismissed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. No objections to the Final R&R were filed.
On September 13, 2017, Plaintiff moved for a second time to
appoint counsel  (“Second Motion to Appoint”)
and for leave to file a second amended
complaint  (“Motion to Amend”).
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 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). Plaintiff did not file
objections to the Final R&R, and the Court thus reviews
it for plain error.
Plaintiff's § 1983 Claims
asserts § 1983 claims against Defendant Amanda Grantham
(“Grantham”), his appointed public defender,
based on her alleged ineffective representation of him in his
state criminal case. (Am. Compl. at 5-7). Plaintiff asserts
Grantham failed to obtain necessary and relevant evidence,
did not file a motion for a speedy trial, and did not seek a
bond reduction hearing. (Id.). Plaintiff also
appears to seek to hold Grantham's supervisor, Defendant
Sarina Woods, and the ...