Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_18-cv-02019/USCOURTS-alnd-2_18-cv-02019-0/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

MARCUS D. MCQUEEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MIKE HALE,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 2:18-cv-2019-MHH-GMB

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 13, 2019, the magistrate judge assigned to this case filed a 

report in which he recommended that the Court dismiss this § 1983 action without 

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

relief may be granted. (Doc. 9). The magistrate judge advised Mr. McQueen of his 

right to file specific written objections within 14 days. (Docs. 9, 11). The Court has 

not received objections from Mr. McQueen. 

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). A 

district court reviews legal conclusions in a report de novo and reviews for plain 

error factual findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 

776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749 (11th 

Cir. 1988); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).

FILED

 2020 Jan-29 PM 12:12

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:18-cv-02019-MHH-GMB Document 12 Filed 01/29/20 Page 1 of 2
2

Having reviewed Mr. McQueen’s original complaint and his amended 

complaint (Docs. 1, 7) and the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, based 

on Alfred v. Bryant, 378 Fed. Appx. 977 (11th Cir. 2010), the Court will dismiss Mr. 

McQueen’s Eighth Amendment claim without prejudice. The Court also will 

dismiss Mr. McQueen’s Fourteenth Amendment claim for failure to plead sufficient 

facts to support a Fourteenth Amendment claim.1

Therefore, the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s report and accepts his

recommendation. In accordance with 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.

The Court will enter a separate final judgment.

DONE this 29th day of January, 2020.

 _________________________________

 MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 In his amended complaint, Mr. McQueen indicated that he wished to assert a Fourteenth 

Amendment due process claim. (Doc. 7, p. 3). In his original complaint, Mr. McQueen asserted 

a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim and an Eighth Amendment claim. (Doc. 1, pp. 

3, 10-12). Because Mr. McQueen is proceeding pro se (without counsel), the Court has read his 

original and amended complaint together. The Court notes that in his original complaint, Mr. 

McQueen indicated that he received a mattress a few days before he left custody. (Doc. 1, p. 5).

Case 2:18-cv-02019-MHH-GMB Document 12 Filed 01/29/20 Page 2 of 2