Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_21-cv-00098/USCOURTS-alnd-2_21-cv-00098-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DARRON MCCALL,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEVE OWENS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:21-cv-00098-ACA-JHE

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Darron McCall filed a pro se amended complaint pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), 

alleging violations of his rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States. 

(Doc. 22). 

On July 12, 2022, the magistrate judge entered a report recommending the 

court dismiss Mr. McCall’s Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference and/or 

conditions of confinement claims against Defendants Owens, Fountain, Brock, and 

Walker pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), for failing to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted. (Doc. 28). The magistrate judge further recommended that 

Mr. McCall’s Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference and/or conditions of 

confinement claims against Defendants Porter, McCall, Cohin, Nurse Wendy, and 

an unknown black female “weekend nurse” proceed. (Id.).

FILED

 2022 Aug-22 AM 10:36

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:21-cv-00098-LSC-JHE Document 30 Filed 08/22/22 Page 1 of 5
2

This matter is currently before the court for review of Mr. McCall’s timely 

objections to the report and recommendation. (Doc. 29). 

First, Mr. McCall objects to the dismissal of his deliberate indifference claims 

against Defendants Owens, Fountain, and Brock for failing to notify Hoover City 

Jail officials and medical staff of his drug addiction and impending withdrawal. 

(Doc. 29 at 1–2). The magistrate judge concluded that Mr. McCall did not allege 

facts establishing that Defendants Owens, Fountain, and Brock were deliberately 

indifferent to his serious medical needs. (Doc. 28 at 5–6). The amended complaint 

alleges that Mr. McCall informed Hoover jail and medical staff of his drug addiction

when he was booked in the jail on January 7, 2021, and during his medical intake 

screening the following morning. (Doc. 22 at 6). Mr. McCall also provided a urine 

sample to jail medical staff which indicated that he was positive for both fentanyl 

and methamphetamine. (Doc. 22 at 6). However, the amended complaint has not 

alleged facts demonstrating what constitutional right Owens, Fountain, and Brock 

violated by failing to notify jail and medical staff of Mr. McCall’s drug addiction 

and concerns about withdrawal when Mr. McCall admittedly notified jail and 

medical staff himself of his condition. 

Accordingly, the court OVERRULES Mr. McCall’s objection to the 

dismissal of his deliberate indifference claims against Defendants Owens, Fountain, 

and Brock.

Case 2:21-cv-00098-LSC-JHE Document 30 Filed 08/22/22 Page 2 of 5
3

Second, Mr. McCall objects to the dismissal of his supervisory liability claims 

against Defendant Walker. (Doc. 29 at 1–3). In his amended complaint, Mr. McCall 

alleges that Defendant Walker was responsible for officers on duty the evening of 

January 8, 2021, and either directed Defendant Porter to place Mr. McCall in the 

hallway corridor while he experienced withdrawal symptoms or failed to investigate 

Defendant Porter’s actions. (Doc. 22 at 7). The magistrate judge determined Mr. 

McCall’s amended complaint did not allege sufficient facts to state a claim for 

supervisory liability against Defendant Walker. (Doc. 28 at 7–8). 

In his objections, Mr. McCall now contends that Defendant Walker personally 

participated in the alleged constitutional violations. (Doc. 29 at 1–3). Specifically, 

Mr. McCall alleges Defendant Walker was present when Defendant Porter placed 

him in the hallway, heard his pleas for help, but failed to intervene. (Doc. 29 at 1–

2). These allegations do not appear in Mr. McCall’s amended complaint. (See doc. 

22). 

On September 14, 2021, the magistrate judge notified Mr. McCall that his 

original complaint was deficient because, among other things, he did not state how 

each named Defendant violated his constitutional rights. (Doc. 21 at 2). The 

magistrate judge ordered Mr. McCall to file an amended complaint which clearly set 

forth the facts that support his claims against the Defendants. (Doc. 21 at 2). Mr. 

McCall then filed an amended complaint, which does not include factual allegations 

Case 2:21-cv-00098-LSC-JHE Document 30 Filed 08/22/22 Page 3 of 5
4

regarding Defendant Walker’s personal involvement in the alleged constitutional 

violations on January 8, 2021. (See doc. 22). Mr. McCall did not seek leave to further 

amend his complaint to allege these additional facts against Defendant Walker 

before the magistrate judge entered his report and recommendation. Mr. McCall 

does not assert that these new factual allegations against Defendant Walker were 

unknown to him when he filed his amended complaint. And Mr. McCall does not 

attempt to justify his delay or explain why he could not have requested leave to 

further amend his complaint to set forth these additional facts against Defendant 

Walker. 

Moreover, the magistrate judge notified Mr. McCall of his right to file specific 

objections to the report and recommendation but explained that his objections should 

not contain new factual allegations. (Doc. 28 at 10). Mr. McCall’s objections contain 

just that—new allegations that were not contained in his amended complaint. The 

allegations in the amended complaint are insufficient to state a claim for relief 

against Defendant Walker, and Mr. McCall’s objections are not a proper vehicle to 

further amend the complaint to assert additional factual allegations.

Accordingly, the court OVERRULES Mr. McCall’s objection to the 

dismissal of his deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Walker. 

After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s 

report and Mr. McCall’s objections, the court ADOPTS the report and ACCEPTS

Case 2:21-cv-00098-LSC-JHE Document 30 Filed 08/22/22 Page 4 of 5
5

the recommendation. Consistent with that recommendation, it is ORDERED that 

Mr. McCall’s Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference and/or conditions of 

confinement claims against Defendants Owens, Fountain, Brock, and Walker are

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). It 

is further ORDERED that Mr. McCall’s Fourteenth Amendment deliberate 

indifference and/or conditions of confinement claims against Defendants Porter, 

McCall, Cohin, Nurse Wendy, and an unknown black female “weekend nurse” are 

REFERRED to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

DONE and ORDERED this August 22, 2022.

 _________________________________

 ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-00098-LSC-JHE Document 30 Filed 08/22/22 Page 5 of 5