United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Middle Division
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
April 18, 2017, the magistrate judge filed a report in which
he recommended, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), that
the Court dismiss this action without prejudice for failing
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. 12).
The magistrate judge notified plaintiff Corion Leshon Moore
of his right to file specific written objections to the
report and recommendation within 14 days. (Doc. 12, pp.
17-18). Mr. Moore filed two motions for extensions of time to
file objections, and the magistrate judge granted both
motions. (Docs. 13, 14, 15, 16). On June 6, 2017, Mr. Moore
filed objections to the report and recommendation (Doc. 17)
and a motion for production of documents (Doc. 18). On August
2, 2017, Mr. Moore filed a motion for leave to file a
supplemental complaint. (Doc. 19).
Moore wishes to supplement his previous complaints (Docs. 1,
10) to address the following “events that happened
after the filing of the original complaint:” “the
denial of access to an adequate use of a law library,
policies regarding visitation, policies regarding free
exercise of religion, food, exercise, air quality and
temperature, clothing, sanitation, personal hygiene and
overcrowding.” (Doc. 19, pp. 1-2). Mr. Moore contends
that the “totality of the conditions” at
“Etowah County Detention Center . . . add up to create
an overall effect that is unconstitutional.”
(Id. at 1).
Court denies Mr. Moore's motion for leave to file a
supplemental complaint. (Doc. 19). The motion contains only a
list of general and conclusory constitutional violations and
provides no specific information about how Mr. Moore would
adequately plead that a particular defendant allegedly
committed the purported constitutional violations. As the
magistrate judge explained in his report, “to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, ‘a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'” (Doc. 12, p. 2) (quoting Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “Threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Based on the information
that Mr. Moore provided in his motion to supplement, it
appears that a second amendment to the complaint would be
Court now turns to Mr. Moore's objections to the report
and recommendation. A district court “may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When a party objects to a report
and recommendation, the district court must “make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” Id. The Court reviews for
plain error proposed factual findings to which no objection
is made, and the Court reviews propositions of law de
novo. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9
(11th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Slay,
714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam), cert.
denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984) (“The failure to
object to the magistrate's findings of fact prohibits an
attack on appeal of the factual findings adopted by the
district court except on grounds of plain error or manifest
injustice.”) (internal citation omitted); Macort v.
Prem, Inc., 208 Fed.Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
Moore does not object to the magistrate judge's
description of the facts underlying his claim and generally
repeats the legal arguments made in the complaint and amended
complaint. (Doc. 17). Citing Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41 (1957), Mr. Moore objects to dismissal of this action
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
because “the complaint may not be dismissed
‘unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can
prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would
entitle him to relief.'” (Doc. 17, pp. 1, 6,
quoting Conley, 355 U.S. at 45-46).
Court overrules Mr. Moore's objection. Ten years ago, the
United States Supreme Court retired the Conley v.
Gibson “‘no set of facts'”
standard and replaced it with a “plausibility”
standard. Simpson v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., 744
F.3d. 702, 714 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 562-63 (2007));
see p. 2 above. Under the plausibility standard, a
plaintiff's factual allegations “must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Moore's factual allegations do not plausibly suggest that
the condition of his bunk bed presented an “objectively
serious” danger. Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d
1344, 1351 (11th Cir. 2004). Moreover, Mr. Moore alleges no
facts from which a factfinder reasonably could infer that any
of the named defendants had “subjective knowledge of a
substantial risk of serious harm” to Mr. Moore before
the top bunk gave way on December 28, 2016 and recklessly
disregarded the substantial risk. (Id.).
the Court adopts the magistrate judge's report and
accepts his recommendation. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b), the Court will dismiss this action without
prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. There is no reasonable expectation that discovery
will reveal evidence to support the necessary elements of a
Fourteenth Amendment conditions claim, and, as discussed, an
amendment to the complaint would be futile. Therefore, the
Court denies Mr. Moore's motion for production of
documents (Doc. 18) and his motion for permission to file a
supplemental complaint. (Doc. 19).
Court will enter a separate final order consistent with this