Filed: Jun. 05, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 05, 2012
Summary: ORDER DUDLEY BOWEN, Jr. District Judge. After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), to which objections have been filed (doc. no. 29). Plaintiff's complaint attempted to raise a multitude of 1983 claims arising from events alleged to have occurred at Wheeler Correctional Facility ("WCF"), located in Alamo, Georgia, and Georgia State Prison ("GSP"), located in Reidsville, Georgia. 1 (Doc. nos. 1, 3, 19.) Mor
Summary: ORDER DUDLEY BOWEN, Jr. District Judge. After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), to which objections have been filed (doc. no. 29). Plaintiff's complaint attempted to raise a multitude of 1983 claims arising from events alleged to have occurred at Wheeler Correctional Facility ("WCF"), located in Alamo, Georgia, and Georgia State Prison ("GSP"), located in Reidsville, Georgia. 1 (Doc. nos. 1, 3, 19.) More..
More
ORDER
DUDLEY BOWEN, Jr. District Judge.
After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), to which objections have been filed (doc. no. 29).
Plaintiff's complaint attempted to raise a multitude of § 1983 claims arising from events alleged to have occurred at Wheeler Correctional Facility ("WCF"), located in Alamo, Georgia, and Georgia State Prison ("GSP"), located in Reidsville, Georgia.1 (Doc. nos. 1, 3, 19.) Moreover, Plaintiff attempted to assert claims on behalf of both himself and his son, Jamrus Smith ("Mr. Smith"). (Id.) Upon screening the complaint, the Magistrate Judge found, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a), that Plaintiffs claims regarding events at GSP were unrelated to the claims concerning his confinement at WCF, and should therefore be dismissed without prejudice.2 (Doc. no. 23, pp. 8-9.) Furthermore, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff lacked standing to assert claims on behalf of Mr. Smith and accordingly recommended the dismissal of all such claims.3 (Id. at 12.) Moreover, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff's remaining claims be dismissed for failure to state a claim, with the exception of Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Holloway, with respect to which service of process issued. (See id. at 5-8, 10-12; doc. no. 25.) The Magistrate Judge also addressed Plaintiff's request to transfer Mr. Smith "to the Columbus Division," as well as his motion to transfer venue to the Statesboro Division, recommending that the first of these motions be denied for lack of standing and that the remaining motion be denied because venue for Plaintiff's claims relating to WCF were properly filed in the Dublin Division of this Court. (Doc. no. 23, p. 9 n.9 & p. 12.)
The majority of Plaintiff's objections are a reiteration of the arguments raised in his complaint, although he has additionally raised several new factual allegations that were not present in his prior pleadings. However, Plaintiff offers no explanation for his failure to present these arguments to the Magistrate Judge in the first instance. The Court finds it inappropriate to consider arguments presented for the first time in Plaintiffs objections, and therefore declines to do so. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (approving district court's refusal to consider new argument set forth in objections where party had opportunity to present such argument to magistrate judge and failed to do so): see also United States v. Howell 231 F.3d 615, 621 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that district courts are not required to consider supplemental factual allegations presented for the first time in objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation).
Turning to the Magistrate Judge's conclusions in the R&R, the Court finds that Plaintiffs objections fail to provide any reason to depart from the conclusions in the R&R. Plaintiffs objections are therefore OVERRULED.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. Therefore, the following of Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED: his claims regarding the grievance procedure against the John Doe counselor; his claim that he was prevented from corresponding with his children against CCA Wheelers4 and the Georgia Department of Corrections; his claim that he was prevented from seeing or speaking with his son against Investigator Sights; his claims regarding his medical treatment and mental and emotional injuries; and his claim regarding his transfer to GSP. In addition,
Defendants Medlin, the Georgia Department of Corrections, CCA Wheelers, Mr. Wright, Ms. Boner, FNU Sights, the Classification Committee, the Staff of the 900 Unit, and the John Doe counselor are DISMISSED. Plaintiff's claims regarding events alleged to have occurred at GSP are DISMISSED without prejudice. Furthermore, Plaintiffs request that Mr. Smith be transferred "to the Columbus Division," as well as his motion to transfer this case to the Statesboro Division, are DENIED.5 (Doc. nos. 11, 22.)
SO ORDERED.
