FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Jul y 14, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 14961 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 0 1 4 3 5 - C V- B - NW B E N B U R T , J R ., P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s T I M O T H Y M A R T I N , S R ., M D , S H O A L S F A M I L Y M E D I C A L C L I N I C , J O H N L . A L D R I D G E , i n h i s i n d i v i d u al an d o ffi ci al cap aci ty a s S h e r if f o f C o lb e r t C o u n ty , D W I G H T W I L S O N , i n h i s i n d i v i d u al an d o ffi ci al cap aci ty a s a D e p u ty o f

C o lb e r t C o u n ty , G E O R G E S H A R P , i n h i s i n d i v i d u al an d o ffi ci al cap aci ty a s a D e p u ty o f

C o lb e r t C o u n ty , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .2 A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma ( Ju l y 14, 2006) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: B en B urt , Jr . , an A l abam a pri soner procee di ng pro se, appeal s the di sm i ss al of hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 c i vi l r i ght s a c t i on. H i s c om pl a i nta l l e ge d tha tthe d e f e n d a n t s , Ti mo th y M a r t i n , M . D. , Sh o a l Fa mi l y M e d i c a l Ce n t e r , Sh e r i f f J o h n L. A ld r id g e , S h e r if

f’s D e p u tie s D w ig h t W ils o n a n d G e o r g e S h a rp , B illy B la c k w e ll, and severa l C ol bertC ou nty J ai l C om m i ss i on er s, deni ed B urtadequat e m edi ca l ca re i n v i ol at i on of hi s E i gh th A m endm entri gh t s; used exces si ve force i n m edi ca l tre atm ent ; un l aw ful l y s ei ze d h i m ; and fai l ed t o adequ at el y tra i n st af f. T he di stri ct c o u r t d is m is s e d th e c la im s u a s p o n te , p r io rto s e rv ic e o f p r o c e s s , f

o rf a ilu r e to s ta te a c l a i m unde r28 U . S . C . § 1915A ( b) ( 1) , be c a us e the a c t i on w a s f i l e d be y ond the ap p l i cab l e st atu t e o f l i m i t at i o n s p eri o d . B u rtn o w ap p eal s. S e c t i on 1915A ( a ) r e qui r e s the di s tr i c tc our tt o pe r f orm a s c r e e ni ng r e vi e w of a ny c i vi l c om pl a i ntf

i l e d by a pr i s one ra ga i ns ta gove rnm e ntof f i c i a l . S uc h a c om pl a i ntm a y be di s m i s s e d i f i t“ f a i l s t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon w hi c h r e l i e f m a y be3

grant ed. ” 28 U . S . C . § 1 91 5A (b)( 1). D i sm i ss al of a pri soner’ s c om pl ai ntas t i m e - ba rr e d pr i ort o s e r vi c e w i l l a l s o be appr opr i a t e i f i t“ appe a r [ s ] be y ond a doubt f r o m th e c o m p la in t its e lf th a t [ th e p r is o n e r ] c a n p r o v e n o s e t o f f a c ts w h ic h w o u ld avoi d a st atut e of l i m i t at i on s bar . ’ ” H ug hes v. L ot t , 35 0 F . 3d 11 57 , 11 63 (11th C i r. 20 03 ) ( ci t i ng L ea l v. G a. D ep’ tof C orrs . , 25 4 F . 3d 12 76 , 12 80 (11th C i r. 20 01 )) . W e r e vi e w de novo a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s s ua s pont e di s m i s s a l of a c om pl a i ntf

or f a i l ur e t o s t a t e a c l a i m pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 1915A ( b) ( 1) , vi e w i ng the a l l e ga t i ons i n the c om pl a i nta s true . S e e L e a l , 254 F . 3d a t1278- 79; M i t c he l l v. F arcass, 1 1 2 F . 3 d 1 4 8 3 , 1 4 9 0 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ) (ap p l yi n g th e sam e st an d ard s as a d is m is s a l u n d e rF e d . R . C iv . P 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) to d is m is s a l u n d e r§ 1 9 1 5 A ( b ) ( 1 ) ) . In states w h er e m o re th an o n e s tatu te o f lim it atio n s e x ists, th e f o ru m state’s ge ne r a l orr e s i dua l pe r s ona l i nj ury s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons appl i e s t o a l l § 1983 a c t i ons f i l e d i n f e de r a l c our ti n tha ts t a t e . O w e ns v. O kur e , 488 U . S . 235, 236, 249- 50, 109 S . C t . 573, 574, 580- 82, 102 L . E d. 2d 594 ( 1989) . I n A l aba m a , the r e s i dua l pe r s ona l i nj ury l i m i t a t i on pe r i od i s tw o y e a r s . J one s v. P r e ui t& M a ul di n, 876 F . 2d 1480, 1483 ( 11th C i r . 1989) ( e n ba nc ) . A c a us e of a c t i on a c c rue s f

or pu rposes of det erm i ni ng w hen the st atut e of l i m i t at i on s per i od began t o run w hen the pl a i nt i f

f kne w ors houl d ha ve know n of hi s i nj ury a nd i t s c a us e . B ow l i ng v. F ounde r s T i t l e C o. , 773 F . 2d 1175, 1178 ( 11th C i r . 1985) ; F r e e v. G r a nge r , 887The district cour t alterna tively found that the action was other wise bar red by the 1 do c trineof

re s judic ata , at le a st a s toso meof thede fendants . B e c a

us ethedis mis sal isoth erwise due to be a ffirme d, we de cline to review this alternative ground. We also note that B urt did not ob je c t tothemag istrate ’sfac tual determinatio ns in t hedis tric t c ourt , a

nd do e s n ot disputetho se matterson

a pp e al. There fo re , th edis mis sal of hisc omp laint

is d ueto b ea ff

ir me d b e c a us eheis barred from attackingthe dismissal on appeal, a nd he has w aived a

ny argument disputing the dis mi s s al. Se eH ardin

v . Wainwright, 6 7 8 F . 2 d 5 8 9 , 5 9 1 ( 5 th

Cir . Un it B 1 9 8 0 ) ( “ [A ]n appellant’ s failureto object to a mag istrate’s report ba r(s) that party

from attacking on a

ppeal fac tual finding s in the repor t acc epted or

adopted by

the district court e x cept upon grounds of plain error or manif

est injustice) (inter

nal citations and quotations omitted); Rowe v. Schre iber, 139 F.3d 1381, 1382 n.1 ( 11th Cir. 1998) (holding that arguments not raised in the initial brief on appeal aredeeme d waived) . 4 F . 2d 15 52 , 15 55 -56 (11 th C i r. 19 89 ). B urtal l eged thatthe vi ol at i on s of hi s E i gh th A m endm entri gh t s t oo k p l ac e i n J ul y 1997, w hi c h w oul d a l s o be w he n he l e a rne d of the i nj ury f

orpurpos e s of b e g in n in g th e ru n n in g o f th e s ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s . S e e B o w lin g , 7 7 3 F .2 d a t 1 1 7 8 . H e f i l e d the c om pl a i nti n the i ns t a nta c t i on i n 2003, w hi c h w a s m or e tha n f i ve y e a r s l a t e r . A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc our tc orr e c t l y de t e rm i ne d tha tthe c om pl a i nt w a s ba rr e d by the appl i c abl e tw o y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons . S e e M a ul di n, 876 F .2 d a t 1 4 8 3 . B u r t, th e r e f o r e , c a n p r o v e n o s e t o f f a c ts th a t w o u ld a v o id a s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s b a r . S e e H u g h e s , 3 5 0 F .3 d a t 1 1 6 3 . A c c o r d in g ly , w e A F F I R M . 1