Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_15-cv-00802/USCOURTS-alnd-5_15-cv-00802-0/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

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

RHONDA GAIL MOORE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 5:15-cv-00802-MHH-JEO

)

QUALITY CORRECTIONS )

HELATH CARE, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation on February 8, 

2016, recommending that the plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment medical claims 

against Tuscumbia City Jail, Colbert County Jail, Quality Correctional Health 

Care, Inc., and individual defendants Holiday, Wear, Logan, and Kurn be 

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 9). The magistrate judge 

also recommended that the plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment medical claims 

against Nurse Doris be referred to the magistrate judge for additional proceedings. 

(Id.). The plaintiff has not filed objections to the report and recommendation.1 

 

1

 On April 13, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file objections to the 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. (Doc. 10). On April 22, 2016, the magistrate 

judge granted the plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time and ordered her to file objections 

within fourteen (14) days of the date of the order. (Doc. 11). On May 4, 2016, the plaintiff filed 

FILED

 2016 Aug-01 AM 08:36

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:15-cv-00802-MHH-JEO Document 14 Filed 08/01/16 Page 1 of 3
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).

2

 

Having reviewed the complaint and the the report and recommendation, the

Court adopts the magistrate judge’s report and accepts the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation. Therefore, the Court dismisses without prejudice all of the 

plaintiff’s claims in this action, with the exception of her Fourteenth Amendment 

medical claims against Nurse Doris. The Court refers the plaintiff’s Fourteenth 

Amendment medical claims against Nurse Doris to Chief Magistrate Judge Ott for 

further proceedings.

 

a second motion for an extension of time to file objections. (Doc. 12). The plaintiff stated that 

she did not receive “a copy of said Document 10” and could not submit her objections until she 

received of copy of the document. (Id.). On May 9, 2016, the magistrate judge advised the 

plaintiff that document 10 was her motion for extension of time to file objections to the report 

and recommendation, filed on April 13, 2016. (Doc. 13). The magistrate judge ordered the 

plaintiff to file objections within ten days. (Doc. 13 at 1-2). The plaintiff failed to file 

objections. 

2 When a party objects to a report in which a magistrate judge recommends dismissal of the 

action, a district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or 

specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 

636(b)(1)(B)-(C). 

Case 5:15-cv-00802-MHH-JEO Document 14 Filed 08/01/16 Page 2 of 3
DONE and ORDERED this August 1, 2016. 

 _________________________________

 MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:15-cv-00802-MHH-JEO Document 14 Filed 08/01/16 Page 3 of 3