Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_13-cv-02100/USCOURTS-alnd-5_13-cv-02100-0/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

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

SHERMAN G. McBRYAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, 

CLASSIFICATION DIVISION,

Defendants.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

Case No.: 5:13-cv-02100-MHH-HGD

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On June 4, 2015, Magistrate Judge Harwell Davis entered a report and 

recommendation concerning Mr. McBryar’s § 1983 claims. (Doc. 11) In his 

report, Judge Davis recommended that the Court dismiss this action with prejudice 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Judge Davis explained to the parties that 

they had fourteen days in which to file objections to the recommendation. (Doc. 

11, p. 23). Neither party has filed objections. 

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 makes timely objections to a report and recommendation, the district 

court “make[s] a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified 

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.

FILED

 2015 Jun-30 PM 01:45

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:13-cv-02100-MHH-HGD Document 12 Filed 06/30/15 Page 1 of 4
2

When no party objects, the district court need not conduct a de novo review. 

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). In 

Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006), the Eleventh 

Circuit stated:

Most circuits agree that “[i]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a 

district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must 

only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 

in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & 

Accident Ins., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quotations omitted); 

accord Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir.1999) 

(“If no objection or only partial objection is made [to the magistrate 

judge’s report], the district court judge reviews those unobjected 

portions for clear error.”); United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 

1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (noting that the “clearly erroneous” standard is 

appropriate where there has been no objection to the magistrate 

judge’s ruling); Drywall Tapers & Pointers v. Local 530, 889 F.2d 

389, 395 (2d Cir. 1989) (“Where a magistrate [judge] has been 

appointed to conduct an evidentiary hearing, the district court reviews 

the Report and Recommendation under the same clearly erroneous 

standard.”) (citing Wooldridge v. Marlene Indus. Corp., 875 F.2d 540, 

544 (6th Cir. 1989)).

Id. The Eleventh Circuit does not appear to have expressly held that a district 

court should review a report and recommendation for plain error in the absence of 

objections; however, other courts in this Circuit have adopted such a position. 

Case 5:13-cv-02100-MHH-HGD Document 12 Filed 06/30/15 Page 2 of 4
3

Tauber v. Barnhart, 438 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1373 (N.D. Ga. 2006) (“[I]ssues upon 

which no specific objections are raised do not so require de novo review; the 

district court may therefore accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge, applying a clearly 

erroneous standard.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted); Am. Charities for 

Reasonable Fundraising Regulation, Inc. v. Pinellas County, 278 F. Supp. 2d 

1301, 1307 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (“[W]hen no timely and specific objections are filed, 

case law indicates that the court should review the findings using a clearly 

erroneous standard.”); Shuler v. Infinity Property & Gas, 2013 WL 1346615, at *1 

(N.D. Ala. March 29, 2013) (portions of a report and recommendation “to which 

no objections is filed are reviewed only for clear error”).

The Court has reviewed the record, paying particular attention to Mr. 

McBryar’s amended complaint and Judge Davis’s June 4, 2015 report and 

recommendation. (Docs. 9-1, 11). Applying the clearly erroneous standard, the 

Court ADOPTS the June 4, 2015 report and ACCEPTS Judge Davis’s

recommendation that Mr. McBryar’s claims be dismissed with prejudice because 

Mr. McBryar has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The Court will enter a separate order consistent with this 

memorandum opinion. 

Case 5:13-cv-02100-MHH-HGD Document 12 Filed 06/30/15 Page 3 of 4
4

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to please mail a copy of this memorandum 

opinion to Mr. McBryar. 

DONE and ORDERED this June 30, 2015.

 _________________________________

 MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:13-cv-02100-MHH-HGD Document 12 Filed 06/30/15 Page 4 of 4