West v. Honorable Judge Debra Jones

• Decision Date: 22 May 2015
• Docket Number: Case No.: 1:14-CV-02298-VEH
• Parties: JOSEPH STEPHEN WEST, Plaintiff, v. HONORABLE JUDGE DEBRA JONES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

JOSEPH STEPHEN WEST, Plaintiff,
v.
HONORABLE JUDGE DEBRA JONES, Defendant.

Case No.: 1:14-CV-02298-VEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION

May 22, 2015

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. INTRODUCTION

The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation (Docs. 29, 30) on May 4, 2015, recommending that Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 7) be granted and that Plaintiff's motion for leave to supplement (Doc. 28) be treated as a motion for leave to amend and be denied. On May 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation. (Doc. 30). The case was reassigned to the undersigned on May 19, 2015. (Doc. 32). Therefore, the matter is now before the undersigned for decision.

Having carefully considered the materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation and after conducting a de novo review of the record relating to Plaintiff's objections, the court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge's report is

Page 2

due to be ADOPTED and his recommendation is due to be ACCEPTED. Plaintiff's objections are due to be OVERRULED. Accordingly, and as set out more fully below, Defendant's motion is due to be GRANTED, Plaintiff's motion is due to be DENIED, and all of Plaintiff's claims are due to be DISMISSED.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

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)(C). This requires that the district judge "give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party." Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). In contrast, those portions of the R & R to which no objection is made need only be reviewed for clear error. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. App'x. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).¹

"Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct."

Page 3

United States v. Woodard, 387 F.3d 1329, 1334 (11th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). It is incumbent upon the parties to timely raise any objections that they may have regarding a magistrate judge's findings contained in a report and recommendation, as the failure to do so subsequently waives or abandons the issue, even if such matter was presented at the magistrate judge level. See, e.g., U.S. v. Pilati, 627 F.3d 1360 at 1365 (11th Cir. 2010) ("While Pilati raised the issue of not being convicted of a qualifying offense before the magistrate judge, he did not raise this issue in his appeal to the district court. Thus, this argument has been waived or abandoned by his failure to raise it on appeal to the district court."). However, the district judge has discretion to consider or to decline to consider arguments that were not raised before the magistrate judge. Stephens v. Tolbert, 471 F.3d 1173, 1176 (11th Cir. 2006); see also Williams v. McNeil, 557 F. 3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009).

"Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court." Nettles, 677 F.2d at 410 n. 8. "This rule facilitates the opportunity for district judges to spend more time on matters actually contested and produces a result compatible with the purposes of the Magistrates Act." Id. at 410. Indeed, a contrary rule "would effectively nullify the magistrate judge's consideration of the matter and would not help to relieve the workload of the district court." Id. (quoting United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 622 (9th Cir. 2000)).

Page 4

III. PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS

Regarding the concerns raised in his objections more specifically, Plaintiff contends first that "the recommendations were not recieved [sic] as required." (Doc. 30 at p. 1). However, Plaintiff's receipt of the report and recommendation is shown by his objecting to them. Further, his objections were timely filed. Accordingly, this objection is OVERRULED.

Next, Plaintiff objects to the authority of the magistrate judge to act without Plaintiff's consent. (Id.)

It appears that Plaintiff misunderstands the report and recommendation process. The magistrate judge is not making any final factual determinations or rulings, but rather only providing recommendations. Instead, the undersigned has reviewed de novo those portions of the record that relate to Plaintiff's objections and separately and independently determined the correctness of any objected-to findings and recommendations.

This accepted process is set forth statutorily in 28 U.S.C. § 636, which states in part that:

(b)(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary-

(A) a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or information made by the defendant, to

Page 5

suppress evidence in a criminal case, to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action. A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

(B) a judge may also designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition, by a judge of the court, of any motion excepted in subparagraph (A), of applications for posttrial relief made by individuals convicted of criminal offenses and of prisoner petitions challenging conditions of confinement.

(C) the magistrate judge shall file his proposed findings and recommendations under subparagraph (B) with the court and a copy shall forthwith be mailed to all parties.

Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (footnotes omitted) (emphasis by underlining added). Accordingly, Plaintiff's objection to the magistrate judge's authority is OVERRULED.

The balance of Plaintiff's objections are merely argument that has already been

Page 6

made before the magistrate judge. In any event, Plaintiff has wholly failed to point to this court any "error" that he complains of in the report and recommendation. Rather, except as discussed above, Plaintiff's "objections" consist of conclusory argument without reference to any specific finding or recommendation, and without reference to any authority that even arguable contravenes such recommendations. Thus, the remainder of his objections are due to be, and hereby are, OVERRULED on that basis.

IV. THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS DE NOVO CORRECT

Nonetheless, the court has considered the entire file, including Plaintiff's objections, de novo, and determines that the magistrate judge applied the correct legal standards and reached the correct conclusions. Specifically, the magistrate judge deemed all "facts" actually alleged by Plaintiff (as opposed to conclusions asserted by him) to be true.² He then correctly determined that all claims set out in Plaintiff's Complaint³,⁴ were due to be dismissed. The undersigned will discuss those

Page 7

determinations in the order in which they appear in the report and recommendation.

A. Claims Against Judge Jones Based on Conduct of Non-Parties

The magistrate judge wrote:

As a threshold matter, the undersigned notes that while West has formally identified and served only a single defendant in this action, i.e., Judge Jones, the Complaint contains a host of allegations related to the conduct of other individuals and entities that supposedly worked to violate West's legal rights. These include allegations against the Calhoun County Drug Task Force, Calhoun County District Assistant District Attorneys Lynn Hammond and Jennifer Weems, and former Calhoun County Circuit Judges Malcolm Street and Joel Laird. However, none of those parties are currently named defendants in this action. Further, West has not pled facts supporting that any of them were acting as agents or employees of Judge Jones. Indeed, many of the events about which West complains occurred before Judge Jones even took the bench in January 2011. Ultimately, West fails to give any hint how Judge Jones might conceivably be liable for the alleged conduct of other parties, whether under § 1983, the FTCA, or any other law. See generally Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) ("Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to ... § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution."); Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280, 285 (2003) ("It is well established that traditional vicarious liability rules ordinarily make principals or employers vicariously liable for acts of their agents or employees in the scope of their authority or employment."). Thus, to the extent that West seeks to recover against Judge Jones for the conduct of others, such claims are due to be dismissed under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).

(Doc. 29 at pp.8-9).

After de novo review, this court agrees. It will ADOPT this portion of the report and will ACCEPT the recommendation that all claims...