LEE v. HUMPHREY, 5:12-CV-136. (2014)
Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20141211967
Visitors: 17
Filed: Dec. 10, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 10, 2014
Summary: ORDER MARC T. TREADWELL, District Judge. Before the Court is the Order and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Stephen Hyles. (Doc. 173). The Magistrate Judge recommends granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 89) Plaintiff Demetrius Lee's complaint 1 because the Plaintiff abandoned his Eighth Amendment claims in his motion to amend the complaint filed on March 11, 2013 (Doc. 128) and because his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim 2 based on being transferred to the S
Summary: ORDER MARC T. TREADWELL, District Judge. Before the Court is the Order and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Stephen Hyles. (Doc. 173). The Magistrate Judge recommends granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 89) Plaintiff Demetrius Lee's complaint 1 because the Plaintiff abandoned his Eighth Amendment claims in his motion to amend the complaint filed on March 11, 2013 (Doc. 128) and because his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim 2 based on being transferred to the Sp..
More
ORDER
MARC T. TREADWELL, District Judge.
Before the Court is the Order and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Stephen Hyles. (Doc. 173). The Magistrate Judge recommends granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 89) Plaintiff Demetrius Lee's complaint1 because the Plaintiff abandoned his Eighth Amendment claims in his motion to amend the complaint filed on March 11, 2013 (Doc. 128) and because his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim2 based on being transferred to the Special Management Unit ("SMU") of the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison ("GDCP") fails to state a claim.3 The Magistrate Judge granted the Plaintiff's motion to amend in part, dismissing the Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims per his request, but denied the motion regarding his Fourteenth Amendment claims because the complaint as amended would still be subject to dismissal. The Plaintiff has not objected to the Recommendation.
The Court has reviewed the Recommendation, and the Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The Recommendation is ADOPTED and made the order of this Court. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 89) is GRANTED and the Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The complaint is filed in Lee v. Humphrey, 5:12-CV-136, at Doc. 1. This case, along with several others, was consolidated with Gholston v. Humphrey, 5:12-CV-97, on November 1, 2012. (Doc. 29).
2. The complaint also alleges the Plaintiff's "property is consistently confiscated for months at a time without any type of hearing." Lee, 5:12-CV-136, Doc. 1 at 5. To the extent the complaint can be read as alleging a separate Fourteenth Amendment claim based on deprivation of personal property, that claim fails because the State of Georgia provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Johnson v. Owens, 2014 WL 6620938, at *3 & n.8 (M.D. Ga.).
3. The Magistrate Judge also recommends dismissing the "John/Jane Doe" defendants because the Plaintiff has made no attempt to identify them.
Source: Leagle
