United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northeastern Division
K. KALLON JUDGE
Anthony Baine, a state prisoner, filed this action alleging
claims against Richard Allen, Kim Thomas, Billy Mitchum,
Dewayne Estes, and the Alabama Department of Corrections for
invasion of privacy for publishing his confidential medical
information on the internet. See generally doc.
The magistrate judge filed a report on July 10, 2017,
recommending that this court dismiss Baine's claims for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (to
the extent the court construes Baine's claims as alleging
violations of the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act, the Privacy Act, or the United States
Constitution), and decline supplemental jurisdiction to the
extent that only state law invasion of privacy claims remain.
See doc. 6 at 12. The magistrate judge advised the
parties of their right to file specific written objections
within fourteen days, id. at 12-13, and Baine timely
filed objections, see doc. 7.
asserts first that the § 1983 complaint form's
directive that the petitioner “state briefly the
grounds on which you base your allegation that your
constitutional rights are being violated” does not
“allow [a] petitioner the opportunity to argue or cite
case law or arguments” and, therefore, is unfair.
Id. at 2. However, courts are required to screen
prisoner complaints in order to determine whether the factual
allegations, accepted as true, state a basis upon which
relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §§
1915A(a) & (b)(1) (“The court shall review, . . .
as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a
civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental
entity. . . . On review, the court shall identify cognizable
claims or dismiss the complaint . . ., if the complaint - . .
. fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted . .
. .”). Moreover, Baine fails to cite any binding
authority in his objections submission indicating that the
magistrate judge failed to properly apply the law to
Baine's factual allegations. Accordingly, this objection
asserts next that he has not received an “opportunity
to be heard.” See Id. at 2-3. This objection
is OVERRULED, because the procedure allowing Baine to submit
objections to the Report and Recommendation, as Baine has
done here, provided Baine an opportunity to explain why he
believes the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation
Baine's assertion that the court cannot determine that
defendants are not “responsible for publicizing the
fact that [he] [is] HIV positive to the entire world”
because defendants “have yet to deny or show any
evidence that they did not do exactly as [Baine] claim[s],
” id. at 3, is misplaced. When analyzing the
sufficiency of a complaint, the court accepts the
plaintiff's factual allegations as true. See Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“[A] complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.”). Here, the magistrate judge found that, even
accepting as true the facts presented on the face of the
complaint, Baine's allegations failed to give rise to a
plausible federal claim. See doc. 6 at 12. Moreover,
as the magistrate judge notes, “The district courts may
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim .
. . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over
which it has original jurisdiction . . . .” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c). Accordingly, this objection is OVERRULED.
Baine states that the magistrate judge's determination
that his § 1983 claim is untimely “does not stand
up to controlling law in this Circuit.” Id. at
4. “A 1983 claim is a tort action that is subject to
the statute of limitations that governs personal injury
claims in the state where the § 1983 action is filed.
The applicable limitations period in Alabama is two
years.” Grayson v. Warden, 672 F.App'x
956, 962 (11th Cir. 2016) (citing Ala. Code § 6-2-38
(1975)). Baine alleges that he learned about the publication
of his medical information in September 2013, and he filed
his complaint in June 2017. Accordingly, the magistrate judge
correctly determined that any § 1983 claim is untimely,
and this objection is OVERRULED.
these reasons, the court is of the opinion that the
magistrate judge's report is due to be ADOPTED, and his
recommendation ACCEPTED. Consequently, Baine's claims are
due to be dismissed without prejudice. The court will enter a
final order in accordance with the foregoing.
 Specifically, Baine asserts that, from
August 2006 until May 2013, “Named defendants
[publicized] medical confidentiality (HIV status) on the Ala.
Dept. Corrections website by stating that [Baine] was housed
at Limestone “Special Unit” and declaring
“Special Unit is for HIV inmate.” Doc. 1 at ...