United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Court previously screened plaintiff's initial complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found it wanting. Doc.
9. However, because plaintiff provided copies of grievances
requesting law library access that were denied because he was
not representing himself in this Court (see docs. 6
& 7), the Court issued an Order informing Chatham County
Detention Center (CCDC) - in no uncertain terms - that Eric
LaTroy Harris was proceeding pro se in this Court. Doc. 9;
see CV417-154, doc. 44. It also warned Harris, yet
again, that it could not “provide him with a Court
order to increase his law library privileges beyond what the
CCDC determines to be adequate.” CV417-154, doc. 22.
Nevertheless, Harris was granted an opportunity to amend his
complaint. Doc. 9; Doc. 13. Harris has returned, contending
that the CCDC continues to “den[y] [him] access to
legal services” because the Court “failed to
state how many hours per week Harris was allowed to have
access to the legal services or law library tablet[.]”
Doc. 13 at 1.
fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts
requires prison authorities to . . . provid[e] prisoners with
adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons
trained in the law.” Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S.
817, 828 (1977). As Harris well knows from this Court's
prior orders, “prisoners' contentions of
deprivations of access to courts must show actual injury as a
‘constitutional prerequisite'” to suit.
Wilson v. Blankenship, 163 F.3d 1284, 1290 (11th
Cir. 1998) (quoting Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,
351 (1996)), quoted in doc. 9 at 4. Here, Harris alleges he
has been deprived of meaningful access and that it has
prevented him from litigating his excessive force case. Doc.
13. But he has not alleged any actual injury from
that deprivation. Indeed, Harris' excessive force case
was dismissed for failing to comply with a Court
Order (to amend his Complaint) and on abandonment grounds.
See CV417-154, docs. 43 & 45. That failure had
naught to do with his law library access.
other words, Harris's Amended Complaint still fails to
demonstrate that he has been injured by inadequate law
library access. His Complaint for deprivation of meaningful
access to the courts should be DISMISSED
without prejudice for failure to state a claim.
R&R is submitted to the district judge assigned to this
action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this
Court's Local Rule 72.3. Within 14 days of service, any
party may file written objections to this R&R with the
Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be
captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendations.” Any request for additional time
to file objections should be filed with the Clerk for
consideration by the assigned district judge.
the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this
R&R together with any objections to the assigned district
judge. The district judge will review the magistrate
judge's findings and recommendations pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that
failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver
of rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonett v.
V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 Fed.Appx. 787, 790 (11th Cir.
2016); Mitchell v. United States, 612 Fed.Appx. 542,
545 (11th Cir. 2015).
REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED.
 Harris has disputed that dismissal,
contending the Court failed to serve him with its Orders,
including the Order requiring that he file an Amended
Complaint at his new, updated address. CV417-154, doc. 48.
Despite Harris' complaining, the only Order that
was returned was the Court's Order denying his motion for
discovery and ordering him to amend his Complaint. Docs. 39
& 42. Shortly after that Order was served, Harris updated
his address. Doc. 40. Based on that, and his silence to the
Court's Order, the Court issued another Order
resetting the deadline for Harris to file his Amended
Complaint, in case its prior Order had missed him. Doc. 41
(giving Harris yet another extension of time to file an
Amended Complaint). That Order was served on his updated 51st
Street address, as reflected in the Court's
non-public docket (where litigants' home
addresses are kept private from public view) and was
not returned undelivered. He failed to respond to
the Order, and now sends missives again from CCDC without an
updated change of address form. Docs. 47 & 48. To that
end, the Clerk is DIRECTED to docket this Report and
Recommendation (R&R) in both cases and serve this R&R
on both addresses Harris has provided to ensure that there is
no ambiguity as to service.
 Despite the lack of any apparent basis
for viable amendment, plaintiff's opportunity to object
to this R&R within 14 days of service, see
infra, affords him an opportunity to resuscitate his
case. He may also submit an Amended Complaint during that
period, if he believes it would cure the legal defects
discussed above. See Willis v. Darden, 2012 WL
170163 at * 2 n.3 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 19, ...