Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_13-cv-01365/USCOURTS-alnd-5_13-cv-01365-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

RASHAD C. LEE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DEWAYNE ESTES and SHIRLEY

BROWN,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 5:13-CV-1365-VEH-JHE

 

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OPINION AND 

PARTIAL FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER;

ORDER REFERRING CASE BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This is a pro se Section 1983 action brought by the Plaintiff, Rashad C. Lee

(“Plaintiff”). The action was initiated on or about July 13 2013,

1

 Plaintiff alleged

that various rights, privileges, or immunities afforded him under the Constitution

or laws of the United States have been abridged during his incarceration. (Doc.

1).2 Under this Court’s usual practices and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the complaint

1 Documents submitted by pro se prisoners are deemed to be filed at the time the prisoner

delivers the pleading to prison or jail officials to be mailed. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266,

270-72 (1988). This is sometimes called the “prison mailbox rule.”

2 Citations to “Doc. __ at __” refer to documents in the court file by their document number

and corresponding page number assigned by CM-ECF, the Court’s electronic document filing

system.

FILED

 2016 Mar-11 PM 03:33

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:13-cv-01365-JHE Document 57 Filed 03/11/16 Page 1 of 5
was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for a report and recommendation.

This matter comes before the undersigned on Plaintiff’s objections (doc. 56)

to the magistrate judge’s February 10, 2016 Report and Recommendation (the

“2016 R&R”)(Doc. 51). Objections were due on February 24, 2015. As of March

3, 2016, only Defendant Estes had filed objections to the 2016 R&R, so the

undersigned only considered Defendant Estes’s objections in reviewing the 2016

R&R.3 On March 3, 3016, the undersigned issued a Memorandum Opinion and

Partial Final Judgment Order. (Doc. 54). That document overruled Defendant

Estes’s objections and denied Defendant Estes’s request to file an additional

response “at [that] time.” (Doc. 54 at 2). In its March 3, 2016 Memorandum

Opinon and partial Final judgment Order, the court entered a memorandum

opinion adopting the magistrate judge’s report and accepting his recommendation.

All of Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed with prejudice except for his Eighth

Amendment claims (nominal damages only) against Defendant Estes; the action

was referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings, including the

potential for receiving further evidence and argument on a possible second motion

for summary judgment prior to initiating pretrial procedures. (Id. at 8).

3 The Plaintiff filed a letter on March 2, 2016 (doc. 53), but that document did not present

any objections to the 2016 R&R.

2

Case 5:13-cv-01365-JHE Document 57 Filed 03/11/16 Page 2 of 5
On March 7, 2016, after the time for objections had passed, and after the

court published its March 3, 2016, Memorandum Opinion and Order, the court

received Plaintiff’s objections to the 2016 R&R. (Docket sheet). However, under

the prison mailbox rule, Plaintiff’s objections are deemed filed February 24, 2016,

and thus are timely. The court now considers Plaintiff’s objections to the 2016

R&R.

II. PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS

A. New Allegations Posed as Objections

The bulk of Plaintiff’s objections consist of new allegations relate to recent

incidents at Draper, Elmore, and Easterling Correctional Facilities. (Doc. 56 at 1-

2, 5-7). As new allegations, these do not constitute objections to the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation and are not considered. 

B. Objections that Plaintiff’s First Amendment Claims Were Misconstrued

The plaintiff also asserts the magistrate judge misconstrued one of his

claims, stating he claimed that he “was punished for . . . writing letters to his

children in direct violation of his and their 1st Amendment” constitutional rights.

(Doc. 56 at 2). However, this objection is made too late and/or has been waived.

Specifically, the record indicates that on August 7, 2014, the magistrate judge

addressed and recommended Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim be

dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Report and Recommendation entered

Case 5:13-cv-01365-JHE Document 57 Filed 03/11/16 Page 3 of 5
August 7, 2014, the “2014 R&R”). (Doc. 25 at 37-39). At that time, Plaintiff had

an opportunity to file objections (id.), and did so on August 14, 2014. (Doc. 28).

Indeed, Plaintiff specifically objected to the recommended dismissal of his First

Amendment claim. (Doc. 28 at 11-15). However, Plaintiff did not assert that the

magistrate judge had misconstrued this claim. 

On October 31, 2014, a district judge of this court overruled Plaintiff’s

objection, adopted and accepted the 2014 R&R with regard to Plaintiff’s First

Amendment claim, and dismissed that claim. (Doc. 31 at 13-16). 

On November 4, 2015, the magistrate judge entered an Order for Special

Report, outlining the remaining claims, which did not include the First

Amendment claim. (Doc. 32). The Order stated that “[t]he plaintiff is required to

notify the court within twenty (20) days after the date of this Order whether the

court has misunderstood or misconstrued the claims pled in the complaint and

amended complaint. (Id. at 3). On November 14, 2014, the court received

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend to add an Eighth Amendment claim, but the

plaintiff did not ask to add a First Amendment claim or notify the court that it had

misconstrued his claims, including his First Amendment claim. (Doc. 34).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s current objections regarding his First Amendment claim is

OVERRULED.

4

Case 5:13-cv-01365-JHE Document 57 Filed 03/11/16 Page 4 of 5
C. Other Objections

The March 3, 2016 Memorandum Opinion is supplemented to the extent

that Plaintiff’s February 24, 2016 objections have been considered after de novo

review of the record and are OVERRULED. 

III. CONCLUSION

All findings and rulings contained in the March 3, 2016 Memorandum

Opinion and Partial Final Judgment Order remain in full force and effect. This

case remains referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings on the only

claim remaining in this action, namely, Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim

against Defendant Estes.

4

DONE and ORDERED this the 11th day of March, 2016.

 

 VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS

United States District Judge

4 The court notes that on the CM/ECF docket sheet, Shirley Brown is listed as an active, but

unrepresented defendant. However, on August 7, 2014, the magistrate judge implicitlyrecommended

that the claims against Defendant Brown be dismissed. (See Doc. 25 at 39 (“[A]ll claims against all

Defendants be DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and/or (2) except” various claims

against Defendants Bias, Conway, DeLoach, Culliver, Thomas, and Estes. (Doc. 25 at 39). This

report and recommendation was adopted as to the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims as to Defendant

Brown on October 17, 2014. (Doc. 31 at 17-18). Accordingly, the clerk is HEREBY DIRECTED

to term Brown’s status as a defendant in this case.

5

Case 5:13-cv-01365-JHE Document 57 Filed 03/11/16 Page 5 of 5