Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-7_12-cv-02688/USCOURTS-alnd-7_12-cv-02688-2/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

WESTERN DIVISION

ANTHONY WAYNE MCCAA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ETTA EDWARDS,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 7:12-CV-2688-VEH

MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation (doc. 59) on June 26,

2015. On July 9, 2015, the plaintiff filed his “Objection” (doc. 60) to that report and

recommendation. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (doc. 53),

his [Supplemental] Motion for Default Judgment (doc. 57), and the Report and

Recommendation are ripe for review by the undersigned.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and

recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681

F.2d 732 (11thCir. 1982). A district judge “shallmake a de novo determination ofthose

FILED

 2015 Jul-21 PM 04:03

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 7:12-cv-02688-VEH-HGD Document 61 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 4
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Thisrequires that the district judge “give

fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a

party.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990) (citation

omitted). A district judge must review legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence

of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir.

1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d

28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994). That said, the court also acknowledges the principle that

“[n]either the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo,

findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” United

States v. Woodard, 387 F.3d 1329, 1334 (11thCir. 2004) (citation omitted). Moreover,

absent specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual

findings de novo. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11thCir. 1993)(noting

that when a party “did not file specific objections to factual findings by the magistrate

judge, there was no requirement that the district court de novo review those findings”)

(emphasis in original) (citations omitted).

THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

In the report and recommendation, the magistrate judge recommended that the

plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (doc. 53) be granted, and that the plaintiff’s

2

Case 7:12-cv-02688-VEH-HGD Document 61 Filed 07/21/15 Page 2 of 4
[supplemental]motion for default judgment (doc. 57) be termed as moot. The magistrate

judge further recommended that, in light of the facts as found and the plaintiff’s failure

to show any actual damages, judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiff and against

the defendant Etta Edwards in the sum of $1.00 as nominal damages. 

THE OBJECTIONS

Although the plaintiff has titled his filing an Objection, the statementsin it, do not

accurately reflect what the magistrate judge actually wrote in his report and

recommendation. Further, none of the plaintiff’s objections, even if accurate, have any

impact on any issue to be decided by this court. Finally, the plaintiff has still failed to

supply any factual or legal basis for his claim of $300,000 in damages.

ANALYSIS

The plaintiff has pointed to no error in the magistrate judge’s finding of no

showing of damages that would support an award of more than nominal damages.

Further, this court finds there was no error in that finding or in the application of law to

that finding. Accordingly, the undersigned findsthat the magistrate judge’sfindi9ngs are

due to be adopted and his recommendation is due to be accepted.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the court will adopt the magistrate

judge’s and accept his recommendations. A final order will be entered separately.

3

Case 7:12-cv-02688-VEH-HGD Document 61 Filed 07/21/15 Page 3 of 4
DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of July, 2015.

 

 VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS

United States District Judge

4

Case 7:12-cv-02688-VEH-HGD Document 61 Filed 07/21/15 Page 4 of 4